200… · the governor his excellency the honourable sir james augustine gobbo, ac the...

PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES(HANSARD)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

FIFTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT

FIRST SESSION

Book 2

5 and 6 September 2000

Internet: www.parliament.vic.gov.au\downloadhansard

By authority of the Victorian Government Printer

The Governor

His Excellency the Honourable Sir JAMES AUGUSTINE GOBBO, AC

The Lieutenant-GovernorProfessor ADRIENNE E. CLARKE, AO

The Ministry

Premier and Minister for Multicultural Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. S. P. Bracks, MP

Deputy Premier, Minister for Health and Minister for Planning . . . . . . . . . The Hon. J. W. Thwaites, MP

Minister for Industrial Relations andMinister assisting the Minister for Workcover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. M. M. Gould, MLC

Minister for Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. P. Batchelor, MP

Minister for Energy and Resources, Minister for Ports andMinister assisting the Minister for State and Regional Development. . . The Hon. C. C. Broad, MLC

Minister for State and Regional Development and Treasurer. . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. J. M. Brumby, MP

Minister for Local Government, Minister for Workcover andMinister assisting the Minister for Transport regarding Roads . . . . . . . . The Hon. R. G. Cameron, MP

Minister for Community Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. C. M. Campbell, MP

Minister for Education and Minister for the Arts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. M. E. Delahunty, MP

Minister for Environment and Conservation andMinister for Women’s Affairs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. S. M. Garbutt, MP

Minister for Police and Emergency Services andMinister for Corrections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. A. Haermeyer, MP

Minister for Agriculture and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. K. G. Hamilton, MP

Attorney-General, Minister for Manufacturing Industry andMinister for Racing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. R. J. Hulls, MP

Minister for Post Compulsory Education, Training and Employment andMinister for Finance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. L. J. Kosky, MP

Minister for Sport and Recreation, Minister for Youth Affairs andMinister assisting the Minister for Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. J. M. Madden, MLC

Minister for Gaming, Minister for Major Projects and Tourism andMinister assisting the Premier on Multicultural Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. J. Pandazopoulos, MP

Minister for Housing, Minister for Aged Care andMinister assisting the Minister for Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. B. J. Pike, MP

Minister for Small Business and Minister for Consumer Affairs . . . . . . . . . The Hon. M. R. Thomson, MLC

Parliamentary Secretary of the Cabinet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. G. W. Jennings

Legislative Council Committees

Economic Development Committee — The Honourables R. A. Best, Andrea Coote, G. R. Craige, Kaye Darveniza,N. B. Lucas, J. M. McQuilten and T. C. Theophanous.

Privileges Committee — The Honourables W. R. Baxter, D. McL. Davis, C. A. Furletti, M. M. Gould andG. W. Jennings.

Standing Orders Committee — The Honourables the President, G. B. Ashman, B. W. Bishop, G. W. Jennings,Jenny Mikakos, G. D. Romanes and K. M. Smith.

Joint Committees

Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee — (Council): The Honourables B. C. Boardman and S. M. Nguyen.(Assembly): Mr Cooper, Mr Jasper, Mr Lupton, Mr Mildenhall and Mr Wynne.

Environment and Natural Resources Committee — (Council): The Honourables R. F. Smith and E. G. Stoney.(Assembly): Mr Delahunty, Ms Duncan, Mr Ingram, Ms Lindell, Mr Mulder and Mr Seitz.

Family and Community Development Committee — (Council): The Honourables E. J. Powell and G. D. Romanes.(Assembly): Mr Hardman, Mr Lim, Mr Nardella, Mrs Peulich and Mr Wilson.

House Committee — (Council): The Honourables the President (ex officio), G. B. Ashman, R. A. Best,J. M. McQuilten, Jenny Mikakos and R. F. Smith. (Assembly): Mr Speaker (ex officio), Ms Beattie, Mr Kilgour,Mr Leighton, Ms McCall, Mr Rowe and Mr Savage.

Law Reform Committee — (Council): The Honourables D. G. Hadden and P. A. Katsambanis. (Assembly):Mr Languiller, Ms McCall, Mr McIntosh, Mr Stensholt and Mr Thompson.

Library Committee — (Council): The Honourables the President, E. C. Carbines, M. T. Luckins, E. J. Powell andC. A. Strong. (Assembly): Mr Speaker, Ms Duncan, Mr Languiller, Mrs Peulich and Mr Seitz.

Printing Committee — (Council): The Honourables the President, Andrea Coote, Kaye Darveniza and E. J. Powell.(Assembly): Mr Speaker, Ms Gillett, Mr Nardella and Mr Richardson.

Public Accounts and Estimates Committee — (Council): The Honourables D. McL. Davis, R. M. Hallam,G. K. Rich-Phillips and T. C. Theophanous. (Assembly): Ms Asher, Ms Barker, Ms Davies, Mr Holding,Mr Loney and Mrs Maddigan.

Road Safety Committee — (Council): The Honourables Andrew Brideson and E. C. Carbines.(Assembly): Mr Kilgour, Mr Langdon, Mr Plowman, Mr Spry and Mr Trezise.

Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee — (Council): The Honourables M. A. Birrell, M. T. Luckins,Jenny Mikakos and C. A. Strong. (Assembly): Ms Beattie, Mr Carli, Mr Dixon, Ms Gillett and Mr Robinson.

Heads of Parliamentary Departments

Assembly — Clerk of the Parliaments and Clerk of the Legislative Assembly: Mr R. W. Purdey

Council — Clerk of the Legislative Council: Mr W. R. Tunnecliffe

Hansard — Chief Reporter: Ms C. J. Williams

Library — Librarian: Mr B. J. Davidson

Parliamentary Services — Secretary: Ms C. M. Haydon

MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

FIFTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT — FIRST SESSION

President: The Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN

Deputy President and Chairman of Committees: The Hon. B. W. BISHOP

Temporary Chairmen of Committees: The Honourables G. B. Ashman, R. A. Best, Kaye Darveniza, D. G. Hadden, P. R. Hall,Jenny Mikakos, R. F. Smith, E. G. Stoney and C. A. Strong

Leader of the Government:The Hon. M. M. GOULD

Deputy Leader of the Government:The Hon. G. W. JENNINGS

Leader of the Opposition:The Hon. M. A. BIRRELL

Deputy Leader of the Opposition:The Hon. BILL FORWOOD

Leader of the National Party:The Hon. R. M. HALLAM

Deputy Leader of the National Party:The Hon. P. R. HALL

Member Province Party Member Province Party

Ashman, Hon. Gerald Barry Koonung LP Hall, Hon. Peter Ronald Gippsland NPAtkinson, Hon. Bruce Norman Koonung LP Hallam, Hon. Roger Murray Western NPBaxter, Hon. William Robert North Eastern NP Jennings, Hon. Gavin Wayne Melbourne ALPBest, Hon. Ronald Alexander North Western NP Katsambanis, Hon. Peter Argyris Monash LPBirrell, Hon. Mark Alexander East Yarra LP Lucas, Hon. Neil Bedford, PSM Eumemmerring LPBishop, Hon. Barry Wilfred North Western NP Luckins, Hon. Maree Therese Waverley LPBoardman, Hon. Blair Cameron Chelsea LP McQuilten, Hon. John Martin Ballarat ALPBowden, Hon. Ronald Henry South Eastern LP Madden, Hon. Justin Mark Doutta Galla ALPBrideson, Hon. Andrew Ronald Waverley LP Mikakos, Hon. Jenny Jika Jika ALPBroad, Hon. Candy Celeste Melbourne North ALP Nguyen, Hon. Sang Minh Melbourne West ALPCarbines, Hon. Elaine Cafferty Geelong ALP Olexander, Hon. Andrew Phillip Silvan LPChamberlain, Hon. Bruce Anthony Western LP Powell, Hon. Elizabeth Jeanette North Eastern NPCoote, Hon. Andrea Monash LP Rich-Phillips, Hon. Gordon Kenneth Eumemmerring LPCover, Hon. Ian James Geelong LP Romanes, Hon. Glenyys Dorothy Melbourne ALPCraige, Hon. Geoffrey Ronald Central Highlands LP Ross, Hon. John William Gamaliel Higinbotham LPDarveniza, Hon. Kaye Melbourne West ALP Smith, Hon. Kenneth Maurice South Eastern LPDavis, Hon. David McLean East Yarra LP Smith, Hon. Robert Fredrick Chelsea ALPDavis, Hon. Philip Rivers Gippsland LP Smith, Hon. Wendy Irene Silvan LPForwood, Hon. Bill Templestowe LP Stoney, Hon. Eadley Graeme Central Highlands LPFurletti, Hon. Carlo Angelo Templestowe LP Strong, Hon. Christopher Arthur Higinbotham LPGould, Hon. Monica Mary Doutta Galla ALP Theophanous, Hon. Theo Charles Jika Jika ALPHadden, Hon. Dianne Gladys Ballarat ALP Thomson, Hon. Marsha Rose Melbourne North ALP

CONTENTS

TUESDAY, 5 SEPTEMBER 2000

ROYAL ASSENT....................................................................... 171DEPUTY CLERK....................................................................... 171MAS: ROYAL COMMISSION ................................................ 171CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Introduction and first reading......................................171QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Electricity: tariff............................................................171Industrial relations: task force............................ 172, 173Liquor: licences.................................................... 172, 173Youth: regional committees..........................................173Public sector: enterprise agreement............................174Port of Melbourne: performance.................................175Minister for Industrial Relations: offices ....................175Olympic Games: training .............................................176

QUESTIONS ON NOTICEAnswers..........................................................................176

ESSENTIAL SERVICES LEGISLATION (DISPUTERESOLUTION) BILLIntroduction and first reading......................................176

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (RESTORATION OF LOCALDEMOCRACY TO MELTON) BILLIntroduction and first reading......................................176

PAPERS....................................................................................... 176VICTIMS OF CRIME ASSISTANCE (AMENDMENT)

BILLSecond reading..............................................................177Third reading.................................................................209Remaining stages ..........................................................209

JURIES BILLCouncil’s amendments and Assembly’s

amendment ................................................................209ADJOURNMENT

Geological Survey: appointment..................................210Fishing: bag limits ........................................................210Carlton: traffic congestion ...........................................210Mount Stirling Road: safety works ..............................210Rail: Ouyen crossing ....................................................211Braybrook: street lighting ............................................211Housing: youth homelessness ......................................211Minister for Environment and Conservation:

correspondence.........................................................212Gas: Portarlington, Indented Head and

St Leonards supply ...................................................212Minister for Major Projects and Tourism:

correspondence.........................................................212Bendigo: healthy eating service...................................213Knox: school crossings.................................................213Goulburn Valley HIV/AIDS resources group .............213EPA: test results............................................................214Housing: St Kilda hotel closure...................................214Dalyston–Glen Forbes Road: upgrade .......................215Local government: national competition policy .........215Patterson–Tucker road intersection: traffic

signals........................................................................215Taxis: driver standards.................................................215

Olympic Games: training.............................................216School Focus Youth Service.........................................216Waverley Park...............................................................216Industrial relations: IT industry...................................217Workcover: premiums ..................................................217Liquor: licences.............................................................218Industrial relations: task force.....................................218Responses ......................................................................218

WEDNESDAY, 6 SEPTEMBER 2000

INFORMATION PRIVACY BILLIntroduction and first reading......................................223

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT (RESTRICTIVECOVENANTS) BILLIntroduction and first reading......................................223

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEEMembership...................................................................223

LAW REFORM COMMITTEEMembership...................................................................223

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES COMMITTEEMembership...................................................................223

WORKCOVER: PREMIUMS................................................... 223PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES ..................................... 236LIQUOR: LICENCES................................................................ 237ABSENCE OF MINISTER........................................................ 246QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Industrial relations: task force.................... 246, 247, 249Electricity: supply .........................................................246Snowy River...................................................................248Better Pools program ...................................................248Geological Survey: appointment .................................249World Economic Forum...............................................250Students: sport participation........................................251

CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT) BILLSecond reading..............................................................252

ESSENTIAL SERVICES LEGISLATION (DISPUTERESOLUTION) BILLSecond reading..............................................................260

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (RESTORATION OF LOCALDEMOCRACY TO MELTON) BILLSecond reading..............................................................261

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSESessional orders............................................................262Adjournment..................................................................298

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY (GENDER IDENTITY ANDSEXUAL ORIENTATION) BILLSecond reading..............................................................263Third reading ................................................................294Remaining stages..........................................................294

JURIES BILLCouncil’s amendments and Assembly’s

amendment................................................................294CONDUCT OF DEBATE.......................................................... 297

CONTENTS

ADJOURNMENTWesley Crisis Centre.................................................... 299Community care: services ........................................... 299Snowy River.................................................................. 299Argyle Square, Carlton................................................ 299Rail: regional links....................................................... 300Beach Road, Black Rock: black spot funding............. 300Electricity: safety certificates ...................................... 300Braybrook: sport and recreation facilities ................. 301Maroondah: financial counselling services ............... 301Mildura hospital........................................................... 301Apex Club of Mansfield................................................ 301Teachers: scholarships ................................................ 302Hospitals: refusal of treatment.................................... 302Waverley Park .............................................................. 302Housing: Shepparton estate ........................................ 303Hospitals: intensive care beds..................................... 303World Economic Forum .............................................. 304Toxic waste ................................................................... 304Better Pools program................................................... 304Fishing: rock lobsters .................................................. 305Electricity: supply......................................................... 305Industrial Relations Victoria: review.......................... 305Workcover: premiums.................................................. 305Bass Coast: sewerage dispute ..................................... 306Rail: port of Geelong link ............................................ 306Minister for Energy and Resources:

consultation .............................................................. 307Industrial relations: task force .................................... 307Responses...................................................................... 308

TUESDAY, 5 SEPTEMBER 2000

QUESTIONS ON NOTICETransport: public transport revenue............................313Premier: Cinemedia board appointments...................313

ROYAL ASSENT

Tuesday, 5 September 2000 COUNCIL 171

Tuesday, 5 September 2000

The PRESIDENT (Hon. B. A. Chamberlain) took thechair at 2.03 p.m. and read the prayer.

ROYAL ASSENT

Message read advising royal assent to Courts andTribunals Legislation (Further Amendment) Act.

DEPUTY CLERK

The PRESIDENT — Order! I welcome the DeputyClerk back to the chamber, and I wish him a fullrecovery.

MAS: ROYAL COMMISSION

The PRESIDENT — Order! I advise the house thattoday Mr Speaker and I delivered a letter to Ms Cleary,secretary of the Metropolitan Ambulance Service royalcommission. It states:

Re: parliamentary immunity

We have been handed a copy of your letter of 31 August 2000to Mr Ian Killey, assistant secretary, Legal Branch of theDepartment of Premier and Cabinet. The letter indicates that adebate is to take place on 6 September in which it issuggested that the commissioner will deliver a ruling as towhether or not he proposes to permit cross-examination ofpast or present parliamentarians.

We are surprised that, despite public comments apparentlyemanating from the commission, no approach has been madeto the Presiding Officers from the commission on these issuesup to the present time.

The purpose of this letter is to address itself simply to thequestion of whether any examination can be made of apresent or former member of Parliament in relation to anymatter raised by the member in either house of theParliament.

It is our firm view that:

1. No such examination may take place;

2. The privilege attaching to such parliamentaryproceedings as contained in the Bill of Rights is theprivilege of the Parliament and not something thatcan be waived by individual members;

3. The Parliament itself has no power to permit itsmembers or former members to waive any suchprivilege;

4. Any attempt to cross-examine a member ofParliament or a former member of Parliament inrelation to any matter which arose in proceedingsin either house would be a contempt of Parliamentand a breach of privilege.

Any questioning of members of Parliament or formermembers in relation to matters which did not arise during thecourse of parliamentary proceedings would be a matter for thecommission.

We trust that this clarifies the matter from the point of view ofthe Victorian Parliament.

The letter is signed by Mr Speaker and me.

I also add that the commission should take notice of thesitting dates listed for the house in respect of anycurrent member who is required as a witness. Thosedates should be avoided. The Parliament has aparamount right to the attendance and service of itsmembers. That is spelt out at page 105 of the22nd edition of May. That right is clearly recognised bythe courts.

CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Introduction and first reading

Received from Assembly.

Read first time.

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for IndustrialRelations) — I move:

That the bill be printed and, by leave, the second reading bemade an order of the day for later this day.

Leave refused.

Ordered to be printed and second reading to be madeorder of the day for next day.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Electricity: tariff

Hon. PHILIP DAVIS (Gippsland) — Will theMinister for Energy and Resources confirm that thegovernment has abandoned its election policycommitment to a uniform tariff for rural electricitycustomers?

Hon. C. C. BROAD (Minister for Energy andResources) — I advise the house that in line with anumber of debates in this house on this matter thegovernment has a very clear commitment to allVictorians, in particular regional and rural customers,that as an absolute minimum they will be no worse offas a result of the introduction of full retailcontestability. In fact, the government expects — andhas made it clear in its submission to the Office of theRegulator-General — that there will be reductions in


172 COUNCIL Tuesday, 5 September 2000

network prices, and that as a result of competition inenergy prices customers can expect to see reductions inprices.

Industrial relations: task force

Hon. G. D. ROMANES (Melbourne) — Will theMinister for Industrial Relations indicate whether shehas received the final report of the independentindustrial relations task force and, if so, will sheindicate how the Bracks government intends to dealwith its recommendations?

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for IndustrialRelations) — Earlier today I had the pleasure offormally accepting on behalf of the Bracks governmentthe landmark report of the Victorian independentindustrial relations task force chaired by ProfessorRon McCallum. Honourable members will be awarethat the impetus for the task force arose out of theGrowing Victoria Together summit in March this year.

Since the creation of the task force in May, ProfessorMcCallum and other task force members have workedtirelessly travelling round Victoria listening to workersfrom many different industries. The task force has alsospoken to many employers and has received more than200 submissions in the past two months. Unfortunatelyit did not receive a submission from the VictorianLeader of the Opposition or from federal MinisterReith. They were either too lazy to write a report ormake a submission or did not care enough aboutVictorian workers who have been disadvantaged by theprevious government’s referral of industrial relationspowers to the commonwealth.

The report stands out as a well considered, in depthlook at the current industrial relations system as itapplies in Victoria. The report makes106 recommendations about possible future industrialrelations arrangements. More than half of therecommendations were adopted unanimously, andalmost all the other recommendations enjoyed majoritysupport. The report clearly records the views of all themembers of the task force in its recommendations andreflects the independence of the task force byidentifying individual member comments with respectto those recommendations. All views are included inthe report.

I have not had a chance to make a detailed examinationof the recommendations, but it is clear the report hasidentified serious deficiencies in the Victorian industrialrelations system. The Bracks government will carefullyconsider the task force’s recommendations, and as partof that process I advise the house that the government

will now conduct research to consider the economicimpact of the various options contained in the report.That will ensure that prior to the government’s adoptingany of the recommendations it will be aware of thepotential economic impact of any change on smallbusinesses and employment in Victoria.

I again take the opportunity to thank individualmembers of the task force, and in particular ProfessorRon McCallum, who worked tirelessly in bringingtogether a broad group of people who have workedconstructively over the past few months. ProfessorMcCallum’s independence is demonstrated by the wayhe ensured that the issues raised by all members of thetask force were incorporated in the report.

Answer ordered to be considered next day on motion ofHon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra).

Liquor: licences

Hon. BILL FORWOOD (Templestowe) — It isstated at page XIV of the government’s secret reviewon the 8 per cent limit on liquor licences that theremoval of the 8 per cent limit will result in greaterchoice for consumers. Will the Minister for SmallBusiness explain to the house how greater choice forconsumers will flow from the closure of smallindependent liquor stores and country pubs and thetransfer of market share to Coles and Woolworths?

Hon. M. R. THOMSON (Minister for SmallBusiness) — I am pleased the government has beenable to release the report into the liquor industry. Thereport recommends the retention of the 8 per cent limiton packaged liquor licences unless an alternativemechanism to ensure small business viability in theindustry is maintained. The government is pleased tohave the support of the Liquor Stores Association ofVictoria for the report and its recommendations. Apress release issued today by the President of theLiquor Stores Association of Victoria, Mr PeterWilkinson, says that the association supports therecommendations of the review and goes on to state:

Mr Wilkinson commended the Minister for SmallBusiness … for ensuring that the review examined thefundamentals of the industry with all stakeholders havinginput.

‘We know that Minister Thomson is under enormous pressurefrom the National Competition Council’, said Mr Wilkinson,‘and to her credit, she has ensured small business a fairhearing’.

…

‘The LSAV is pleased that Minister Thomson has madeprovision for a consultative process. The association is fullycommitted to participate.



…

‘… and endorses the recommendation which would outlawany attempt to circumvent the 8 per cent cap with a generallicence, as has occurred in recent times. This practice is ananomaly.

‘The recommendation to link the retail packaged liquorindustry to the proposed initiative of the commonwealthgovernment in establishing a retail ombudsman and a retailcode of conduct is definitely praiseworthy’, saidMr Wilkinson.

‘The recommendation to ensure harm minimisation will alsohave the full support of our members’, said Mr Wilkinson.

It is obvious that the Liquor Stores Association oVictoria understands the intent. It is also obvious thatthe report will go out to consultation, and thegovernment is looking forward to that proceeding.

Liquor: licences

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Jika Jika) — Myquestion to the Minister for Small Business also relatesto the review of the packaged liquor industry. Giventhat the previous government and the former ministerfailed to address the issue, will the minister providefurther detail of the outcome of the review of the 8 percent cap on packaged liquor licences and contrast theposition of the review with the information provided tothe media by the opposition spokesperson on smallbusiness, the Honourable Bill Forwood?

The PRESIDENT — Order! In answering thequestion, I suggest the minister not go over the groundshe has already covered.

Hon. M. R. THOMSON (Minister for SmallBusiness) — As I said, the report was released on4 September. In June 1999 the previous governmentwas notified of the requirement to withdraw the 8 percent cap on packaged liquor licences.

Hon. M. A. Birrell — To review it.

Hon. M. R. THOMSON — It did not review it; itdid not do anything with it. The previous governmentdid not go to the election with a policy position on it.All we can assume is that the previous government waswaiting for an election it was expecting to win toremove the cap without consultation, which was itspractice.

In contrast, there has been wide consultation in thedevelopment of the report, which recommends theretention of the 8 per cent cap unless there is analternative mechanism to protect small businesses. Thereport also calls for the strengthening of the 8 per centcap to ensure that people cannot get around general

licences. The government will be introducinglegislation into this place to ensure general licences donot become a way around that 8 per cent cap, and I lookforward to the opposition’s support for it.

I also referred to the press release from the LiquorStores Association of Victoria and its reference to theinclusion of the federal code of conduct for the retailsector and also the recommendation to look at the effectof drinking habits.

The report is being put out for broader consultation. Itwill be available to everyone who runs a liquor store, ahotel, or a licensed grocery. People will have 28 days inwhich to put their views to the department on thereport. There will be visits into regional Victoria andmetropolitan Melbourne to ensure that people have achance to put their views, and I look forward to thatconsultative process. I look forward to getting thoseviews and to the involvement of the peak bodies in thatreview. Based on the consultative process and therecommendations of the review, we will then take thematter back up with the National Competition Council.


Hon. R. M. HALLAM (Western) — I refer theMinister for Industrial Relations to her evidence beforethe Public Accounts and Estimates Committee that theindustrial relations research consultancy, which she justmentioned in the house and which was recentlyawarded to the Australian Centre of Industrial RelationsResearch and Training, was not subject to a tenderprocess. Given that the $80 000 consultancy fee was adirect cost to the public purse, does the decision not togo to tender represent a departure from governmentpolicy?

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for IndustrialRelations) — During the Public Accounts andEstimates Committee hearing I was asked that questionand I informed the committee that the research intoVictorian workers not covered by federal awards hadnot gone to tender but was done under the auspices ofthe industrial relations task force. It was conducted byan organisation that had the required ability, capabilityand competency to undertake such research. Thedecision to let the contract to the Australian Centre ofIndustrial Relations Research and Training was adecision of the task force and I stand by that decision.

Youth: regional committees

Hon. E. C. CARBINES (Geelong) — Will theMinister for Youth Affairs inform the house how the



views and issues of young people in rural and regionalVictoria are communicated to government?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for YouthAffairs) — On Tuesday, 1 August I relaunchedVictoria’s regional youth committees (RYCs).

Honourable members interjecting.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN — I can understand theopposition’s confusion over the mechanisms ofconsultation because the previous government had littleinterest in consulting with young people. I recentlyrelaunched Victoria’s youth committees following areview of the role, function and composition of thecommittees. There are 15 regional youth committees —5 in metropolitan Melbourne and 10 in rural areasacross the state — that play an important role inadvising the government and me about youth needs andissues in local areas. The RYCs are made up ofprofessionals from a variety of backgrounds, includingthe non-government sector, business, governmentdepartments, local community representatives andyoung people.

During the first half of this year I asked the Office forYouth to review the role, function and composition ofthe regional youth committees. The outcome of thatreview has led to the existing network of 15 regionalyouth committees being retained and strengthened, withregular meetings with me throughout the year; mostimportantly, the appointment of seven full-time youthliaison officers to resource the regional youthcommittees which were substantially under-resourcedand so had little impact on the previous government’syouth policy; an update of the RYCs’ terms ofreference following input from their chairs andmembership; and a clear expectation, as reflected in thenew terms of reference, of increased participation ofyoung people in the committees’ processes.

The RYCs are aligned with the regional structure of theDepartment of Education, Employment and Training,taking them out of the Department of Human Servicesfollowing the government’s policy commitment to giveopportunities to young people in regional and ruralVictoria.

Public sector: enterprise agreement

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra) — I refer theMinister for Industrial Relations to her comments lastweek in an answer to a question from her ownbackbench when she talked about the Community andPublic Sector Union (CPSU) dispute settlement andsaid that the settlement allowed for a 3 per cent wageincrease which is budget neutral. In response to a matter

raised during the adjournment debate by my colleague,Mr Brideson, the minister repeated that argument —that it was 3 per cent and was budget neutral. Given thatthe media have widely reported that payments of 4 percent and up to 6 per cent are included as part of theCPSU deal, will the minister confirm that all costsabove the 3 per cent that she has asserted as part of thebudget will have to be met by the relevant departmentsfrom within their existing budgets?

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for IndustrialRelations) — Last week in response to the HonourableAndrew Brideson’s comments about media reports onmy announcement in the house about the settlement ofthe Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU)enterprise bargaining agreement I indicated that itinvolved a 3 per cent wage increase and also involvedan agreement to review the pay classification structureas set out in the current award, that details of a moretransparent performance-based pay system would bedistributed to employees, and that we had entered intoan agreement with the CPSU and its members for amore cooperative and consultative approach toindustrial relations. Part of the agreement was to reachfurther agreements down the track with individualdepartments.

That was the response I gave last week to a questionasked and to an adjournment matter raised bycolleagues of the Leader of the Opposition, and I standby that response today. It was a 3 per cent pay increasewith a performance-based payment, as I said — —

Hon. M. A. Birrell — On a point of order,Mr President, I am happy with the minister’s preambleto her response, but she is answering a previousquestion and a previous matter raised on theadjournment. My question was: if it is true that theincrease is 3 per cent and budget neutral, and given thatthe media has reported that a 4 per cent to 6 per centincrease is part of the deal, will departments have to payfor all payments made above the 3 per cent increase outof their budgets? My point of order is that the ministerhas not yet answered the question.

The PRESIDENT — Order! The minister willanswer the question.

Hon. M. M. GOULD — I have not checkedHansard, but I recall saying to the Honourable AndrewBrideson that a performance-based payment would bemet by each department.


The PRESIDENT — Order! I ask the respectiveleaders of the house to desist from interjecting.



Port of Melbourne: performance

Hon. KAYE DARVENIZA (Melbourne West) — Irefer the Minister for Ports to the fact that the port ofMelbourne has an important role to play in maintaininga vibrant and growing Victorian economy. While theprevious government — —


The PRESIDENT — Order! We will leave themedia moguls to one side. I ask the honourable memberto continue with her question.

Hon. KAYE DARVENIZA — I am pleased thathonourable members on the other side of the househave bothered to listen so carefully to my comments onthe radio and to follow my performance in the press. Ithank them very much for that.

The port of Melbourne has an important role to play inmaintaining a vibrant and growing Victorian economy.Given that the previous government concentratedmainly on selling off the state’s ports, such as those atPortland and Geelong, will the minister inform thehouse of the performance of the publicly owned port ofMelbourne during 1999–2000?

Hon. C. C. BROAD (Minister for Ports) — Theprevious coalition government privatised the regionalports of Geelong and Portland, which the HonourableGeoff Craige, as the minister responsible for portsduring the privatisation and sale of the Geelong port,will remember well. I am pleased to advise the house ofthe excellent trade results experienced by the publiclyowned port of Melbourne during 1999–2000. Thesubstantial increase in trade demonstrates the key rolethe port plays in serving Victoria’s growing economy.

The port of Melbourne remains far and awayAustralia’s busiest container port. During 1999–2000the port experienced a boom year in trade.Containerised imports and exports improved by 14 percent to a total container throughput of more than1.2 million 20-foot equivalent units. That growth easilyeclipses that of the previous 12 months, which stood ataround 7 per cent. Forty-four million revenue tonnes ofcargo moved through the port in the last financial year,which represented an increase of 5.7 per cent over theprevious year. Melbourne remains the primary port ofchoice for Australian exporters and importers, and theprinciple centre for the Australian container-basedcargo market.

Dry bulk traffic almost reached an impressive 2 milliontonnes and experienced a growth of 13 per cent over theprevious year. New motor vehicle imports also showed

an exceptional growth rate of 17 per cent. Those resultsagain emphasise Melbourne and Victoria’spre-eminence as a gateway for imports supplying theAustralian market. The port’s status as a hub withaccess to extensive road and rail connections has majorsignificance for companies involved in internationaltrade. Traders are able to avail themselves of thoseconnections for the movement of cargo services as wellas the services of more than 40 shipping lines. Theexcellent trade results for the port of Melbourne is goodnews for the whole state, reflecting the confidence oflocal and international companies in doing business inVictoria. It also emphasises the importance of the roleof an efficient port in strengthening Victoria’s role asthe nation’s manufacturing heartland.

Unlike the previous government, which focused on thesale and privatisation of public assets, the Bracksgovernment is focusing on tangible outcomes forVictorian business that ensure the utilisation of portservices as well as the growth of the whole state.

Minister for Industrial Relations: offices

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS (East Yarra) — Will theMinister for Industrial Relations confirm that sincecoming to office as a minister the total cost of her officerenovations, departmental reorganisations and movingcosts has exceeded $147 000?

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for IndustrialRelations) — I wish the honourable member would geta life! He has already asked the question and I haveanswered it. I also answered the question when Iappeared before the Public Accounts and EstimatesCommittee. I offered the information to the deputychairman of that committee, the Honourable BillForwood, who did not even want it, for goodness sake!I said to him, ‘Do you want me to tell you how muchthe renovation of my office cost?’. He said, ‘No, no’,but the chairman, the honourable member for GeelongNorth in the other place, Peter Loney, wanted to know.I am quite happy to put the answer on the record onceagain. The honourable member is a bit thick. Howmany times does he have to be told?


Hon. M. M. GOULD — As I have said previouslyto the house and to the Public Accounts and EstimatesCommittee, there was no previous minister forindustrial relations and there was no minister’s office.Temporary arrangements for the new office whichinvolved some minor adjustments were made at35 Spring Street at a cost of $20 000. Permanent

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


accommodation was then found at 1 Macarthur Streetat a cost of $107 000.

Olympic Games: training

Hon. R. F. SMITH (Chelsea) — Will the Ministerfor Sport and Recreation advise the house of thebenefits Victoria will derive from its hosting ofOlympic Games soccer matches and pre-OlympicGames training?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Sport andRecreation) — As I have said on a number ofoccasions, Sport and Recreation Victoria is responsiblefor coordinating the Olympic Games football to beconducted at the Melbourne Cricket Ground and for thedevelopment of Victoria’s status as a pre-Olympictraining competition destination for international teamsparticipating in the Olympic Games. In hosting theOlympic Games football in Melbourne, Victoria willhave the distinction of becoming a dual Olympiccity — a rare accolade for any city and anotherreflection of the fact that Victoria is the place to be.

The flow-on economic benefit to Victoria of OlympicGames football is estimated to be around $40 million.Some 250 media representatives from around the worldwill be in Melbourne for the event, which will furthershowcase the state. That exposure will result inincreased visitation from international guests and anincreased add-on economic benefit. The governmenthas also been actively working in consultation with thestate’s sporting associations and facility managers topromote Melbourne as a pre-Olympic training andcompetition destination.

Victoria will capitalise on the Olympic Games byhosting pre-Olympic training for more than1500 overseas athletes. That number includes 81 teamsrepresenting 16 sports. Officials and members of themedia will also be present. Regional Victoria will bearthe fruit from that. A number of table tennis teams willtrain in Ballarat, Mildura and Bairnsdale and the bulk ofthe Ukrainian Olympic squad will train in Wodonga.

Members of the opposition will appreciate that anumber of teams will train in Melbourne. They includeDanish handball, Belarus fencing, British cycling andMalaysian badminton. Mr Birrell will appreciate thatthe French and Canadian synchronised swimmingteams will train in Victoria, as will the American men’sand women’s basketball teams. The men’s team, notunlike the opposition, is known as the dream team.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Answers

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for IndustrialRelations) — I have an answer to question on noticeno. 636.

Hon. C. C. BROAD (Minister for Energy andResources) — I have an answer to question on noticeno. 613.

ESSENTIAL SERVICES LEGISLATION(DISPUTE RESOLUTION) BILL


Hon. C. C. BROAD (Minister for Energy and Resources)introduced a bill to amend the Electricity Industry Act1993, the Gas Industry Act 1994, the Water Industry Act1994, the Water Act 1989 and the Melbourne WaterCorporation Act 1992 to provide for customer disputeresolution and for other purposes.

Read first time.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (RESTORATIONOF LOCAL DEMOCRACY TO MELTON)

BILL


Hon. C. C. BROAD (Minister for Energy and Resources)introduced a bill to amend the Local Government Act1989 to provide for a general election of councillors forthe Melton Shire Council on 13 October 2001 and forother purposes.

Read first time.

PAPERS

Laid on table by Clerk:

Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 — Minister’s order of25 August 2000 giving approval to granting of a lease atBrighton.

Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 —Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Drugs and Poisons,No. 15, September 2000, together with Amendment No. 1and Minister’s Notice regarding the amendment,commencement and availability of the Poisons Code (threepapers).

Planning and Environment Act 1987 — Notices of Approvalof the following amendments to planning schemes:

VICTIMS OF CRIME ASSISTANCE (AMENDMENT) BILL


Ballarat Planning Scheme — Amendments C8, C26 andC32.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme — Amendment C1.

Brimbank Planning Scheme — Amendment C21.

Campaspe Planning Scheme — Amendment C12.

Casey Planning Scheme — Amendment C12.

Dandenong — Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme —Amendment C7.

East Gippsland Planning Scheme — Amendment C2.

Maroondah Planning Scheme — Amendment C4.

Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme — AmendmentC12 (Part 1).

Swan Hill Planning Scheme — Amendment C2.

Victoria Planning Scheme — Amendment VC8.

Yarra Planning Scheme — Amendment C14.

Statutory Rules under the following Acts of Parliament:

Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 —No. 85.

Electronic Transactions (Victoria) Act 2000 — No. 86.

Gas Safety Act 1997 — No. 83.

Melbourne City Link Act 1995 — No. 84.

Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 —

Ministers’ exemption certificates under section 9(6) inrespect of Statutory Rule Nos. 82 and 85.

Proclamation of His Excellency the Governor inCouncil fixing an operative date in respect of an Act.

Accident Compensation (Common Law and Benefits) Act2000 — Section 4 — 1 September 2000 (Gazette No. G35,31 August 2000).

VICTIMS OF CRIME ASSISTANCE(AMENDMENT) BILL

Second reading

Debate resumed from 29 August; motion ofHon. M. R. THOMSON (Minister for Small Business).

Hon. C. A. FURLETTI (Templestowe) — I ampleased to speak on the Victims of Crime Assistance(Amendment) Bill, which the opposition does notoppose in this instance. This is another example of thegovernment’s smoke and mirrors tricks. Thegovernment introduced the legislation with greatfanfare as it did the Workcover, freedom of informationand other bills that implement its pre-election promises,

but when one analyses the bill one sees that it barelyreaches the standards the government indicated it wouldmeet prior to its hoodwinking the Victorian public intovoting it close to office and making arrangements withthe Independents to secure government. The opennessand transparency of government which the Labor Partycommitted to both before and after striking thatarrangement have not come about.

The bill before the house today makes very fewchanges. In that sense we can be grateful that thegovernment has substantially endorsed the amendmentsthe previous government introduced by way of therewriting of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act in1996. This bill retains the suite of changes introducedby the previous government, including the fundamentalpremise that was the cornerstone of the 1996amendments — that is, the requirement that victims beprovided with assistance as soon as possible after theevent and that they not be kept waiting and languishing,in some cases for a number of years.

The raft of initiatives remaining in the legislationincludes the immediate referral of victims of crime tocounselling and the provision of vouchers for paymentfor treatment. It also includes the advice that victimsreceive assistance almost immediately after the event toenable them not only to be made aware of their rightsbut also to access the enforcement of those rights, andimmediate access to medical and other treatment. Allthose initiatives were introduced with a view toimplementing the opinions of experts who indicatedthat immediacy of attention is far more effective thandelayed compensation in restoring a victim’s pride andconfidence and rehabilitating and returning a victim tothe community.

I was pleased to be part of the government which in1996 considered that it was far more important to attendto victims’ immediate needs than to give them handoutsof money, as was the previous Labor government’swont.

The history of victims of crime legislation is nowbecoming fairly extensive. This type of legislationstarted under a Liberal government in 1972 with theintroduction of the Criminal Injuries CompensationAct, which was rewritten in 1983. It is interesting tonote that section 15 of that act contains a number ofprovisions that remain with us today. Thatgroundbreaking legislation, introduced by a Liberalgovernment in 1972, provided for compensation to bepaid to a victim of crime for the actual expensesincurred by the victim. It also included compensationfor pecuniary loss to the victim from incapacity towork; pecuniary loss to dependants as a result of the



death of a victim of crime; pecuniary loss for injury andreasonable expenses incurred; and provision forcompensation for the pain and suffering of the victim.They were fairly groundbreaking and innovativeprovisions in those days. The lid was kept on whatwould today be seen as a fairly generous schemebecause the amount of compensation was capped.

Hon. R. M. Hallam — And pain and suffering wasincluded.

Hon. C. A. FURLETTI — In 1972 the maximumcompensation payable to a victim of crime was$3000 and, as the Honourable Roger Hallam said,compensation for pain and suffering was not treatedseparately; it was included as part of the cap. Thatsituation remained until 1981, when the maximum hadbeen increased to some $10 000. In 1987 the amount ofcompensation had been increased to $20 000, but Iunderstand it was still on the same basis. A statistic thatneeds to be put on the record is the fact that 88.5 percent of the total amount awarded in 1986 related to painand suffering. That is indicative of the manner in whichthis type of scheme can cause enormous blow-outs inbudgets.

Every member of this chamber acknowledges andappreciates that every victim is a vulnerable and fragilemember of society, whether he or she be a victim ofcrime, a traffic or workplace accident, a serious illnessor even a sporting accident. Anybody who suffersinjury, whether it be physical, psychological oremotional, deserves society’s care and attention.However, as I indicated, there must be limits. In the1972 legislation and scheme the then government sawthe community providing a safety net for those whofound themselves victims of violent crime, and itsought to provide some facility to enable those victimsto receive medical treatment and other compensation,minimal though it was, for pecuniary loss and the like.

In 1995 the Auditor-General disclosed in his report thatover the next five years compensation for victims ofcrime would cost some $630 million. That would havebeen the cost by this year of the scheme in place. Thecommunity would have seen the annual cost almostdouble from $100 million from 1995 to 2000 if thescheme had continued as it was. Another interestingfigure to put on record, and I will refer to this later, isthe fact that the average compensation award in 1995was $5000. It is also worth noting that in 1995 morethan half the claims that were lodged took more thantwo years to complete and a third took more than threeyears. Victims of crime were being left to languishawaiting the outcome, waiting for the tribunal to makean award. There was uncertainty, and it was obvious by

1995 that there was an urgent need to review the wholegamut of compensation for victims of crime. Theprevious government implemented that review.

It was also clear in 1995 that the scarce funds that wererequired by the community to cater for genuine cases ofneed were being channelled into some extraordinaryclaims. Towards the end of the previous scheme therewere examples cited of quite unacceptable claims beingmade such as that of the New Zealand resident whocame to Victoria to make a claim in respect of hisdeceased brother, even though they had not been incontact for some years. In another case a claim wasmade by the natural father of a deceased victim whohad been adopted out at birth. There had been only onecontact since that adoption and the father was held to beentitled to make a claim for compensation although thenexus between the victim and the claimant wasminimal.

There are many instances of compensation being paidto people who had instigated and participated in pubbrawls, street fights and the like, so there was anunderstandable reason for the system being usedinappropriately and for such an enormous blow-out inthe budget.

The 1996 act resulted in some 35 000 contacts beingmade with the victims assistance agency and some17 000 people receiving full counselling, as comparedto a previous statistic of some 8500 complainants, so itis obvious the reforms have been effective and efficientin servicing victims of crime.

All honourable members would be aware that in thecurrent year’s budget the government has allocatedsome $60 million over the next four years for pain andsuffering compensation under the legislation. Thatamounts to $15 million per annum. I do not know howthe government does its sums because on mycalculation, if the average award for pain and sufferingin 1995 of $5000 is any basis on which to make theargument, if one divides the $15 million by $5000, onlyabout 3000 victims of crime will be compensated.Given the statistics I mentioned — that last year some17 000 victims received counselling — I do notunderstand how the government will make up theshortfall.

My argument is probably substantiated by theminister’s disclosure in the second-reading speech thatbefore the changes in 1997, awards for compensationand costs amounted to between $40 million and$50 million each year, the comment being that it wouldbe too heavy a burden to impose on the communitytoday. That seems to substantiate my argument that the



amount necessary will far exceed the $15 million thathas been allowed. Another telling point about thestatement in the second-reading speech is that itindicates the philosophy of the government. In talkingabout the bill and victims of crime the minister says thatregrettably the government cannot afford to turn backthe clock, and states

Unlike other state schemes, —

I can only assume the minister is talking about schemessuch as Workcover or perhaps the Transport AccidentCommission —

we cannot look to an industry or a distinct sector of society topay a higher premium to cover retrospective claims.

Does that not tell us something about the philosophy ofthe government? It acknowledges that the scheme hassome inherent difficulties and that the number ofclaimants will exceed what the government hasbudgeted for, but I suppose time will tell just how goodthe government is at managing taxpayers’ funds, as itdid back in 1992.

In its 1996 revamp of the victims of crime assistancescheme the Kennett Liberal coalition government didmore than simply introduce legislation to provideassistance to victims of crime. It had a far broaderagenda than that: it introduced victim impact statementsas part of the sentencing regime for courts andtribunals; it facilitated intervention orders and madethem far more expeditiously available to victims indomestic disputes, in particular; and in section 86 of theSentencing Act it introduced the power for courtsexercising criminal jurisdictions to award compensationto victims against offenders who were before the courtat the time and were convicted. It is pertinent to say, asdid a County Court judge, that the power provides animmediate and expeditious way for a victim to obtaincompensation from a perpetrator of an offence withouthaving to go through a civil process. I will talk aboutthe section 86 amendments later.

The previous government also recognised the breadthof categories of victims that arose because of theproblem with which the legislation dealt, and a numberof categories were established: primary, secondary andrelated. Primary victims are those who suffer animmediate impact as a result of a violent act — that is,they are the persons against whom the offences aregenerally perpetrated. Secondary victims include thosewho observe or are present at the commission of acrime and parents of child victims — in other words,those who are incidentally injured and suffered trauma.Related victims are those family members or otherwise

related dependents or intimate associates of the primaryvictim.

Each of those categories has different rights andbenefits. Suffice it to say that for primary victims themaximum benefit is $60 000, which includescompensation across the board for medical treatmentand up to $20 000 for loss of income. Secondaryvictims have a limit of $50 000 for similar claims.Related victims also have a $50 000 limit, but that limitcan be increased to a maximum of $100 000 wherethere are multiple claims by multiple related victims,and the $100 000 can be split between all relatedvictims. That does not make provision for pain andsuffering but it certainly makes provision for the mostimportant of elements — that is, the provision oftreatment, care and attention on an immediate basis tothose who are most in need.

The bill extends some of the rights of related victims. Itextends the period during which child victims of sexualabuse may make claims, extends the classes of victimseligible to claim, and makes procedural andadministrative changes in respect of Victims of CrimeAssistance Tribunal hearings. However, the main thrustof the change that the government intends to sell itselfon is the introduction of pain and suffering payments. Iwill look at those in more detail shortly. From theLiberal Party’s perspective the issues in these casesextend far beyond the payment of money, particularlythe almost insulting amounts of money categorised inthe bill. The Liberal Party believes the wellbeing ofvictims is an issue that goes beyond handouts and thatthis type of scheme should not be politicised.

It is the care and respect for the most vulnerable in thecommunity that should remain the objective of suchschemes. The previous government believed publicfunds should not be used to buy sorrow or compassionbut to provide treatment, rehabilitation and restitutionof respect.

What is unique in my time in this place is that for thefirst time reference in the bill is made to the purposesand objectives of the act. In my 30 years as a solicitor Ihave noted that the purpose or purposes have alwaysbeen expressed, but for the first time this bill deals withthe objectives of the act. The purpose of the principalact remains the same, which is to provide assistance tovictims of crime, but there appears to be a need for thegovernment to set out the objectives of the act, perhapsbecause it is unable to express what they are in otherways. Whatever the reason, to embed them inlegislation is strange.



Clause 4 substitutes a proposed new section 1 of theprincipal act headed ‘Purpose and objectives of Act’,which includes:

… a symbolic expression by the State of the community’ssympathy and condolence for, and recognition of, significantadverse effects experienced or suffered by them as victims ofcrime; and

… to allow victims of crime to have recourse to financialassistance under this Act where compensation for the injurycannot be obtained from the offender or other sources.

Clause 4(3) states:

Awards of financial assistance … are not intended to reflectthe level of compensation to which victims of crime may beentitled at common law or otherwise.

Clause 4(4) states:

The scheme provided by this Act is intended to complementother services provided by government to victims of crime.

That appears to be the inclusion of part of asecond-reading speech in legislation. If it is intended topromote the government’s objectives, it would be moreappropriate in the second-reading speech as anexplanation rather than being committed to legislation.Nobody necessarily objects to the objectives of the act,but to enshrine them in the legislation is unusual.

The symbolism of the amounts becomes obvious inclause 7, which inserts proposed section 8A.Irrespective of what is created as a perception, it is thereality that will come home to roost. Proposedsection 8A establishes four categories based not on thedegree of pain and suffering, which could have been anappropriate indicator, but on the severity of the crimethat was committed.

What is interesting, and takes away from publicscrutiny, is that the four categories that are establishedcan be varied or altered by regulation. The most seriouscategory relates to offences such as aggravated rape,incest and other serious crimes where the specialfinancial assistance, which relates only to primaryvictims, is set at a minimum of $3500 and a maximumof $7500.

I am advised by officers from the department that thesecond category would include armed robberies. Theminimum amount of compensation is set at $1000 andthe maximum is $2500. An armed robbery can beextremely traumatic. I extend sympathy to those whohave gone through such circumstances. The thirdcategory, which includes crimes such as aggravatedassault, has a minimum of $500 and a maximum of$1000. For the fourth category, the lowest level of

crime, which includes common assault, the minimum isset at $100 with a maximum of $500.

What is not indicated is whether the awards will be asof right or whether the administration costs will faroutweigh the amount of compensation. There is notinformation either in the legislation or in thesecond-reading speech about the basis on which theseamounts were calculated. It is one thing to say thesepayments are symbolic, but we must reassure victimsthat the community cares. That can be better done byhaving the victims attended to expeditiously. In someinstances I am certain that offering the amounts set outin the bill to people who have been the victims ofdreadful crimes will not necessarily achieve theconclusion the government is trying to achieve. It couldbe perceived to be an insult, something I canunderstand happening.

I congratulate the government on expanding theProvisions of the Sentencing Act. Clause 21 extends thedefinition of ‘injury’ to include grief, distress or traumaor other significant adverse effect. The bill also extendsthe period within which an application forcompensation can be made from within 6 months afterconviction to within 12 months after conviction. Theability of victims to obtain expeditious and immediateremedy without the need for civil proceedings is aprovision of which the previous government can beproud.

It is interesting to note that not much fanfare has beenmade of proposed section 85D, which allows the courtto extend the time in which to bring an application if thecourt can be convinced it is in the interests of justice todo so. It is a means of extending a limitation period togive the victim the benefit in extraordinarycircumstances. Clearly there is no limit to the amount ofcompensation that can be awarded under section 86; thecourt is exercising its jurisdiction in compensating forthe injuries sustained. I am sure honourable memberswill have read about a substantial award recently madein the courts to children on that basis against a fatherwho murdered his wife.

The amendments to the bill extend the manner in whichapplications can be made so that they no longer need tobe made personally by a victim; they can be made on avictim’s behalf. Quite appropriately, in determiningcompensation the court is obliged to take into accountany other amounts the victim has received in the past.Any applications under this provision do notnecessarily preclude a subsequent civil action forrecovery of damages.



It should be noted, too, that in this type of application afinding of guilt is necessary. That is not the case in theVictims of Crime Assistance Act. It should also be puton the record that the state can apply to be compensatedfor payments it has made to a victim, and that amountcan be recovered from the offender.

The government intends to review the scheme in threeyears time. I put the government on notice that theopposition will be closely monitoring the progress ofthe scheme. It will ensure that the changes are properlyand appropriately administered and that victims ofcrime derive the benefits intended from the scheme,which is a minor variation to a very good schemeintroduced by the previous government.

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS (Jika Jika) — I havegreat pleasure in supporting the Victims of CrimeAssistance (Amendment) Bill. It seeks to deliver on oneof the government’s pre-election commitments, whichwas to reinstate compensation for pain and suffering tovictims of crime. Prior to the election the governmentcommitted $45 million over a three-year period. I ampleased that in this year’s budget an amount of$60 million was allocated for the scheme, to beimplemented over four financial years.

As honourable members are aware, compensation forpain and suffering was available for Victorian victimsof crime from 1973 until 1 July 1997, when the Kennettgovernment abolished that statutory entitlement. Thebill is part of a package of assistance for victims ofcrime which includes counselling services particularlytailored to the specific needs of victims who reside inregional Victoria, those who are members of theAboriginal or culturally and linguistically diversecommunities, or those with physical or mentalimpairments.

Hon. M. T. Luckins — That was a Kennettgovernment initiative.

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS — The honourablemember will have her turn later. The package extendsbeyond financial assistance to broaden the scope ofcounselling services available to victims of crime. I ampleased that the government consulted widely on thebill, and I commend the honourable member forRichmond in the other place on chairing a consultativecommittee that consulted with representatives ofvictims of crime associations and organisations,representatives from the centres against sexual assaultand other organisations that had a particular interest inthe legislation. The bill will be welcomed by thebroader community, and in particular by victims ofcrime and their advocacy organisations.

The major thrust of the bill relates to the amendments tothe Victims of Crime Assistance Act. The basicpremise of the bill, which reinstates compensation forpain and suffering to victims of crime, is found inclause 4, which amends the objectives of the Victims ofCrime Assistance Act. In the bill compensation for painand suffering is referred to as special financialassistance.

I always have a great deal of interest in following theHonourable Carlo Furletti because his comments andthe hollow arguments that the opposition puts forwardabout the government’s legislation are a great source ofamusement. Mr Furletti waxed lyrical about the factthat proposed new section 1 includes the government’sobjectives. I am pleased the government has included inthe objectives of the principal act a statement thatvictims of crime who receive financial assistancereceive it:

… as a symbolic expression by the State of the community’ssympathy and condolence for, and recognition of, significantadverse effects experienced or suffered by them as victims ofcrime …

That statement encapsulates the government’s view thatalthough no monetary amount can compensate a victimof crime for the injury, damage, loss, distress orhumiliation suffered, it is important for the communityto show symbolically that it has sympathy for thevictim. It is an acknowledgment that the victim hassuffered some loss or damage to his or her person. Mypersonal view is that such an expression of publicsympathy can assist victims of crime to recover fromthe trauma they have experienced and help them to geton with their lives as best they can.

Unlike the previous government, the Bracksgovernment will not dictate to victims of crime whatawards for special financial assistance can be used for.The former government justified the abolition of thestatutory right to pain and suffering compensation byreferring to a particular instance where a victim ofcrime used some of her compensation to purchase a redcoat. That was extremely trivial and made a mockery ofthe pain and suffering of past and present victims ofcrime.

The government has a firm view that victims of crimeshould be free to spend whatever compensation theyreceive solely at their own discretion, and in someinstances that may well include expenditure of apersonal nature that assists that particular victim ofcrime to readjust to normal society.

The government is also of the view that a tribunalshould not preclude a victim of crime or the family of a



victim from setting up a reward for information leadingto an offender being captured or convicted, as has beenwell documented in the Halvagis case, where the familywas precluded from pursuing compensation becausethey made it known that they intended to use thecompensation for that purpose.

The government has a view, as I said, that victims ofcrime and their families should be able to spend thecompensation as they see fit and appropriate.

Under the present act primary victims of crime canobtain financial assistance up to $60 000 for thepayment of medical expenses, loss of income and otherassociated expenses. Secondary victims, who caninclude witnesses of a crime and members of thevictim’s family, are eligible to obtain compensation forsuch losses up to a maximum of $50 000.

The bill does not seek to alter those ceilings, butclause 6 provides that any special financialassistance — that is, compensation for pain andsuffering; I use that term to assist members’understanding — will be in addition to those cappedamounts. In effect, the government is increasing thepool of funds available to victims of crime and theirfamilies from the current ceilings of $60 000 and$50 000 respectively to allow additional amounts to beobtained by way of special financial assistance.

Prior to 1 July 1997 victims of crime were able toobtain compensation for pain and suffering up to amaximum of $20 000. Concern had previously beenexpressed — I can say this having been formerly apractising member of the legal profession — that thewide discretion available was leading to inconsistentdecisions and awards being made by the Victims ofCrime Assistance Tribunal. It was also difficult forvictims of crime and their legal advisers to obtain anyproper indication of the amount of compensation avictim would obtain if he or she pursued an application.The scheme the bill seeks to introduce in clause 7,which inserts proposed section 8A in the principal act,will introduce a level of compensation that is contingentupon two factors. The first factor relates to theseriousness of the offence, with higher awards beingmade for more serious offences, and the second relatesto the impact on the victim. Obviously a higher awardwill be made to a victim who has suffered an injury asopposed to a significant adverse effect. I will speakmore about that in a moment.

Mr Furletti sought to suggest that the amount ofcompensation being offered under this four-tieredapproach where offences are categorised as A, B, C andD, with category A being the most serious type of

offence, is paltry. I think he used the words ‘paltry innature’.

Hon. C. A. Furletti — I said that people whosuffered serious injury could find it insulting.

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS — I thank Mr Furlettifor that. I am always keen to make sure that I get hisexact words on the record. They are worth putting onthe record!

My point was that Mr Furletti was indicating that thelevel of compensation was inadequate at the same timeas he said the amount the government has budgeted forwill be inadequate to meet the demand. He sought toillustrate that point by referring to averages under theprevious scheme, which allowed for a discretionary capof $20 000. I do not believe any kind of analysis can bemade based on the previous averages, given that wewill now have a system that prescribes a maximumaward based on the seriousness of the offence and willtake into account the level of injury suffered by thevictim involved.

Hon. C. A. Furletti interjected.

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS — There will bediscretion, Mr Furletti, that is why a minimum and amaximum are set out in the bill.

The bill provides for four categories of offences andgives the tribunal a discretion to award compensationbased on the seriousness of the offence. Whether acts ofviolence fall into category A, B, C or D will beprescribed by regulation, as will the maximum andminimum amounts of compensation.

The government has made it clear that it is committedto reviewing the adequacy of the award levels after thescheme has been in operation for a three-year period.Mr Furletti owes it to victims of crime to give thescheme a chance and see how it operates in practice.

In my view, the introduction of the categories will nottrivialise in any way the seriousness of offences. Evenwhere a victim of crime is able to pursue only a smalleramount of compensation under category D, the fact thathe or she is able to pursue that compensation withoutthe previous threshold of $200, which will be removed,is a validation to that victim of the fact that he or shehas suffered a serious injury that is deserving ofcompensation by the community.

In addition to introducing this four-tiered scheme thebill also seeks to introduce a wider class of victim.Unlike the situation under the Kennett legislation, avictim of crime will not be precluded from pursuing



compensation because the offender has not beencharged or convicted of an offence. The Victims ofCrime Assistance Tribunal will be able, on the balanceof probabilities, to award compensation where it comesto the view that an act of violence has been committed.

In addition, it will no longer be necessary for a victimof crime to prove injury. The concept of significantadverse effect that has been introduced in clause 5 ofthe bill seeks to add grief, distress, trauma or injuryexperienced or suffered by a victim as a direct result ofan act of violence to the previously existing concepts ofinjury. In addition, the concept of injury itself has beenexpanded to include mental illness and mental disorder.By introducing the concept of significant adverse effectand by broadening the definition of injury, thegovernment has ensured that a larger group of victimsof crime will now have scope to pursue compensationunder the legislation.

As part of its commitment to fiscal responsibility thegovernment felt it was unable to make the legislationretrospective to 1997. However, victims of crime,where an act of violence occurs after 1 July 2000, willbe able to pursue compensation for special financialassistance. Those victims of crime, where the offencehas been committed before 1 July 2000, will stillremain eligible to apply for financial assistance forthings such as medical expenses and loss of income.

The one area where the government has decided to bemore generous in terms of retrospectivity is childhoodsexual assaults. Clause 20 seeks to recognise that thereis an inherent delay in the reporting of crimes involvingchildhood sexual assault, and the legislation will allowchildren who have experienced sexual abuse after1 July 1997 and children abused before 1 July 2000,where the alleged offender has been committed orpresented for trial after 1 July 1997, to pursue specialfinancial assistance. This exception to retrospectivity ishighly warranted. From the number of public instancesthat have been documented in recent years honourablemembers will be aware that it is particularly traumaticfor children to report those types of crimes and that theymay only come to light many years after the eventwhen a victim has become an adult and is able to facethe reality of the traumatic situation in which he or shewas involved and to report that matter. I commend theAttorney-General for including this exemption inclause 20.

Clauses 8 and 9 seek to insert proposed section 10A inthe Victims of Crime Assistance Act. At the presenttime the principal act allows primary victims inexceptional circumstances to apply for payment ofexpenses that will assist them in their recovery. This

payment of expenses is in addition to any entitlementthey have to compensation for medical and otherexpenses. To date, such awards have been made tocover expenses such as the purchase of computers, thecost of holidays and the payment of educational andremedial courses.

I should add that such payments are made only inhighly exceptional circumstances where the tribunal issatisfied that the payment will assist the victim torecover from the crime committed against him or her.The bill seeks to extend the exceptional circumstancesentitlements to related victims affected, for example, bythe death of a victim, and also to certain secondaryvictims, such as parents and guardians of child victims,but not to witnesses present at the scene.

Part 2 of the bill also contains a number of minoramendments. I shall refer to some of those briefly.Clause 11 removes the penalty for failure by a victim tonotify the tribunal of other potential applicants.Currently, related victims are required to inform thetribunal within 21 days of making an application of thedetails of other potential applicants. A failure to do soresults in the victim being liable for a penalty of up to$5000, which is a fairly harsh imposition to make onapplicants to the tribunal. Clause 11 removes thepenalty while retaining the notification procedure. Inthis way the tribunal is assisted in informing othervictims of their entitlements without victims beingunder the threat of having to pay a significant fine forfailing to comply with the current section.

Clause 17 seeks to remove the presumption that relatedvictims have to bear their own legal costs. The currentVictims of Crime Assistance Act creates a presumptionthat related victims bear their own costs. Such apresumption does not exist for other categories ofvictims, such as primary and secondary victims.Clause 17 removes this presumption so that all victimsare treated in the same way for costs.

The final matter I wish to refer to under part 2 relates tothe current provisions in the act that relate to publicaccess to the tribunal’s material. Currently, the Victimsof Crime Assistance Act regulates how evidence anddocuments are presented to the tribunal and how suchdocuments can be inspected and published. Clauses 15and 16 provide that tribunal material should not bepublished unless the tribunal is satisfied there is apublic interest in so doing.

The bill also seeks to address and regulate the mannerin which documents on the tribunal’s file may beinspected by members of the public. Under theproposed new section inspection by the public is



prohibited unless the tribunal orders that a documentshould not remain confidential, and where inspection issought by a person other than the victim without theleave of the tribunal and the registrar believes thedocument should not be disclosed.

I now move to part 3 of the bill, which relates toamendments of the Sentencing Act 1991. When theKennett government abolished the statutory right forcompensation for pain and suffering, it also amendedsection 86 of the Sentencing Act to extend anoffender’s liability to pay victims for the harm that heor she caused. Liability at that time was extended fromproperty damage to include liability for pain andsuffering.

I am sure all honourable members will be of the viewthat offenders should in theory be held financiallyaccountable for the harm they cause to their victims.However, in practice the matter is more complicated. Iwelcome Mr Furletti’s congratulating the governmentfor proposing amendments to section 86 of theSentencing Act. To date, very few victims of crimehave been able to pursue compensation or redress fromoffenders. The current operation of section 86inappropriately places the onus on victims to pursueoffenders for compensation, which puts them at risk ofrevictimisation.

Section 86 of the Sentencing Act is dependent upondefendants being successfully convicted of offencesand being both capable and willing to pay thecompensation pursued. The government is proposing toretain section 86 as an option available to victims. Thatoption will be complementary to and not in substitutionof a state-funded compensation scheme.

I note that clause 4 of the bill, which relates to theobjectives of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act,states in new section 1(3) that:

Awards of financial assistance … to victims of crime are notintended to reflect the level of compensation to which victimsof crime may be entitled at common law or otherwise.

Under the proposed system victims of crime will beable to simultaneously pursue compensation throughthe Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal and under theSentencing Act. Clause 12 precludes the Victims ofCrime Assistance Tribunal from staying an applicationfrom being heard because a civil proceeding or a relatedproceeding under the Sentencing Act is being heard atthe same time. In effect, it requires the tribunal to hear amatter quickly so that victims of crime can get on withtheir lives.

The government has decided to make a number ofalterations to the operation of the Sentencing Act toexpedite the application and hearing processes forvictims of crime. That will be achieved by extending to12 months the current 6-month period within whichvictims’ applications for compensation can be accepted.A further extension of time will also be granted where acourt application has been made and the court believesit is in the interests of justice to extend an applicationbeyond the 12-month period.

As I said previously, the definition of ‘injury’ will alsobe expanded to enable a broader range of victims topursue compensation, not only under the Victims ofCrime Assistance Act but also under the SentencingAct. In addition, a wider range of documents andevidentiary materials will be admissible, includingevidence from victims themselves, in compensationclaims made against offenders. In addition,compensation will now be available to victims of crimefor a wider range of matters, including medical costsand other expenses.

The government has decided to continue the currentpractice of having no ceiling on the amount that can beawarded under part 4 of the Sentencing Act. Victims ofcrime will be able to pursue the maximumcompensation available under the Victims of CrimeAssistance Act as well as pursuing, in theory at least, anunlimited amount of compensation under theSentencing Act.

I congratulate the Attorney-General on yet againseeking to speedily introduce a bill that will implementone of the government’s pre-election commitments. Indoing so, he has allowed for a more than adequateprocess of consultation to occur with key stakeholdergroups. The bill, which I hope the house will passtoday, is a very good piece of legislation. The changesit proposes to the Victims of Crime Assistance Act andthe Sentencing Act will not only assist victims of crimeto attain just recompense for the loss and harm theyhave suffered, but will also assist them psychologicallyto validate their experiences publicly and adjust backinto the community. I commend the bill to the house.

Hon. R. M. HALLAM (Western) — I shall reportthe National Party’s reasoned response to the Victimsof Crime Assistance (Amendment) Bill and indicatethat the bill shall not be opposed.

The bill has two purposes: firstly, to amend the Victimsof Crime Assistance Act of 1996 to enable primaryvictims to receive a monetary award for significantadverse effects and to increase the amounts that may beawarded to secondary and related victims in certain



circumstances; and secondly, to amend the SentencingAct of 1991 to reform the process by which victimsmay recover compensation from defendants in criminalproceedings without having to resort to civilproceedings.

The major concept underpinning the bill is, we are told,a response to the Bracks government’s commitment toreinstate pain and suffering as a basis for compensationto victims of crime. We are also told the bill reversesthe decision taken by the Kennett government tospecifically exclude pain and suffering as a basis forvictim compensation under the Victims of CrimeAssistance Act.

Honourable members should note that at the same timeas the deliberate decision was taken to remove pain andsuffering as a specific basis for compensation under theVictims of Crime Assistance Act, the Kennettgovernment strengthened access to compensation underthe Sentencing Act by allowing the courts to makecompensation orders for the pain and suffering ofvictims where offenders were convicted.

From the National Party’s perspective, the effects of thebill fall into two categories. The first category is anumber of practical initiatives that go to themanagement and administration of victims of crimecompensation in a general sense.

I acknowledge that victims of crime is a relatively newand evolving area of law that will need to be finetunedover time. The National Party acknowledges that theamendments to the bill are designed to assist questionsof equity particularly regarding access to compensationand the practicality of its administration. On that basis,the National Party is happy to support the amendments.

However, the second category deals with those effectsdesigned to deliver the Bracks government’sundertaking to reinstate pain and sufferingcompensation as a separate and legitimate basis ofcompensation for victims of crime. Much can be saidabout whether pain and suffering is an appropriate basison which to award financial compensation. That opensup the old debate of whether the community shoulddifferentiate between pecuniary compensation andnon-pecuniary compensation, and about the rationalefor any differentiation.

That is not a new debate for the chamber or for mebecause the house has dealt with that specific issue onseveral occasions, particularly regarding workerscompensation where repeatedly the question aroseabout the appropriateness of awarding damages

specifically for pain and suffering. I will return to thatissue in the context of the 1996 amendments.

Much can be said about that fundamental issue, buteven more can be said about whether the bill deliverson the commitment given by the Bracks government inopposition about returning pain and suffering as aspecific basis on which compensation should beawarded. The second-reading speech describes theaward as a tangible expression of the community’ssympathy and concern.

That demonstrates that the government is at least tacitlyacknowledging that the award is symbolic. It is reportedthat the honourable member for Richmond in the otherplace, who chaired the Attorney-General’s reviewcommittee, went one step further and described the billnot only as symbolic but also as a token gesture. That isa long way removed from the commitment to reinstatepain and suffering as a basis for compensation.

I can do no better than go to the first paragraph in thesecond-reading speech of the Attorney-General inanother place, where he states that the bill:

… implements the government’s election commitment toreinstate compensation for pain and suffering for victims ofviolent crime.

That is a bald statement of claim. When one turns to theway in which that reinstatement is to take place onediscovers it is severely restricted and becomes a paleshade of the system that previously prevailed. Some ofthe claims made by the government become fanciful.

The National Party has misgivings about severalaspects of the concept that underpins the bill. Thegovernment is obviously less enthusiastic since it hasassumed the responsibility of office because the bill is asubstantial step back from the previous undertakingsgiven from the comfort of opposition. But for all that Iacknowledge that compensation for pain and sufferingwas a specific election commitment. To that extentLabor has a mandate and the National Party believesnot only that the government should be given theopportunity to implement its policies and promises butalso that it is the job of those on the opposition benchesto ensure that it keeps its promises.

The bill goes about half way towards achieving whatthe Labor Party undertook to do. Moreover thegovernment is going in the wrong direction. However,the Labor Party won the right to manage the affairs ofstate and on that basis the National Party does notoppose the bill. I wish the Labor government luck inthis instance. As the Honourable Carlo Furletti said, Igive the government notice that the National Party will



also monitor the new provisions. I intend to remind thegovernment of commitments made and commentsmade in this place today.

Much has been said about the Kennett government’s1996 decision to delete pain and suffering as a separatecriteria under which compensation could be granted bythe Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal. The househas repeatedly heard that the previous administrationwas heartless, that the Kennett government lackedcompassion and care and that it was driven too much bythe bottom line. It is on the public record that theAttorney-General has described the decision made onpain and suffering in 1995 as outrageous. Before theLabor government completely rewrites history I shallrecall some of the facts and issues the Kennettgovernment faced in 1995 and 1996, which led to the1996 amendments.

By 1995 every honourable member, every communityobserver and certainly every advocacy organisationknew that something had to be done with the oldsystem, which was primarily based on the old CriminalInjuries Compensation Act. That legislation wasbreaking down. Many criticisms made of the system asit then operated were accepted across party lines; it isironic that many of those criticisms are tacitlyacknowledged today in the bill. I ask the house torecognise some of the real issues rather thanretrospectively demonising the architect of the 1996changes.

The then Attorney-General, the Honourable Jan Wade,pursued a number of reforms that were specificallydesigned to protect and recognise victims in theoperation of the Victorian legal system. I put at the headof that list the issue of victim statements. Jan Wade isentitled to be congratulated on her foresight andtenacity as a legislator; she did not lack compassion andcourage. She does not deserve the misconstruction ofevents now put forward as the justification for the bill.

I turn now to the recognised facts that were thengenerally agreed across the political spectrum. The firstcriticism was the recognition that the system was tooslow. There is much evidence that the speed of theaward system is critical to its success; that rule appliesto any remedial package and underpins the transportaccident and workers compensation systems. There isgeneral acceptance that time is of the essence when itcomes to devising a remedial package. The best way toaddress trauma is to act immediately or as quickly aspossible; the recovery process must start as soon aspossible. It is generally acknowledged that any delay inthe implementation of a remedial package becomes a

complication or a barrier to a victim’s ultimaterecovery.

Under the old victims of crime assistance system priorto 1996 many of the awards made, as the HonourableCarlo Furletti said, occurred two or three years aftercrimes had been committed.

In fact, I think more than 50 per cent of awards werepaid more than two years after the date of the crime.We should all acknowledge that that was an absolutelyhopeless situation. We had reached a point wherecompensation was considered quite separately fromrecovery. In other words, the test of whether the systemwas working became dependent on the dollar sign; thedollar became the measurement of community responserather then the extent to which that dollar hadeffectively contributed to the recovery. Thus acompassionate government had to do something aboutthe time factor. That much was clear. Let the recordshow that the Kennett government did do somethingabout that time factor. We provided for free crisiscounselling available via a voucher immediately uponrecognition of the claim. The first thing was the issue oftiming.

The second criticism, which was accepted across thepolitical spectrum, was that the process operating thenwas too haphazard in its format — it had become alottery. Prior to 1996 the likelihood of compensationbeing awarded depended more upon the name of thelawyer whom the claimant consulted than the merit ofthe claim. The raw data was obvious. Only about one infour of those who were ostensibly entitled to make aclaim actually did so. What does it tell us about thesystem when between 1994 and 1996 only about one infour of those who ostensibly qualified actually appliedfor compensation? The fundamental question that wasraised at the time was: how could that be the case? Thefact was that very few victims were advised of theirentitlement; it depended on which law firm had beenconsulted and whether a law firm had been consulted.

Despite whatever else they might have done that has ledto criticism today, the 1996 amendments saw theintroduction of an automatic referral line. As soon asvictims contacted the police they were advised of theirentitlement regarding counselling and compensation,and the number of people accessing those services grewdramatically. Not surprisingly there was an exponentialgrowth in the number of people applying. In my viewthat was a good thing on two counts: first, it overcamethe fact that the majority of victims were missing out onexisting services and entitlements; and second, the newsystem was providing access immediately so servicesbecome much more effective, particularly for those



who fell into the counselling category. We saw veryclear evidence of greater access, and that hardly soundslike a government that lacked compassion. I suggestthat the facts in that instance speak for themselves.

Thirdly, I will make some points about the extent towhich the system was open to abuse. Much has beenmade of this aspect, and we have heard about the claimsin respect of the red coat which, in my view, is nothingmore than a red herring. There were many exampleswhere compensation was granted in circumstances notcontemplated in the design of the law. Mr Furletti hasgiven the chamber a number of examples of that. Manysuccessful claimants were clearly not blameless: manyhad contributed to the action that caused their injury.Examples were cited of several claims arising from theequivalent of a pub brawl where there were gravedoubts that the injured and the compensated claimantswere innocent bystanders, which was the inference inthe original design. In many cases it was clear that thosesuccessful claimants were not just unfortunate enoughto be in the wrong place at the wrong time. There wasevidence of rorting and it did not go to the issue of howthe claimant used the damages awarded — theso-called red coat example we see cited in thesecond-reading speech, a frivolous example.

We were much more concerned about how some of theclaimants had the temerity to make a claim in the firstplace. To that extent the system had been held up toridicule and had lost credibility in the eyes of thecommunity. Members should remember, as we didthen, that it was the community who was funding it.There were any number of genuine claimants in thesystem who witnessed the dubious claims goingthrough the system at the time. Members can makelight of it, but there was plenty of evidence that thesystem was being employed beyond the objectivesoriginally intended.

Fourthly, and this, too, was uncontested at the time, thesystem had become too costly. I remind the chamberthat in 1995 the Auditor-General did a report oncompensation for victims of crime. He reported that theawards were running at the rate of about $100 millionper annum. More importantly, he said at the time thatthe trend was exponential and he expected that unlesschanges were implemented the total value of claimswould reach something in the vicinity of $160 millionper annum by the year 2000. As proof of that he cited a370 per cent increase in claims in the five years from1998. We could not close our eyes to the facts of thesystem. It represented a substantial cost to the publicpurse and it would have been quite irresponsible toignore the trend, particularly given the fact that thebasic criticism of the scheme was that it was too

selective and therefore unfair in respect of accessibility.We were determined to do something about equity ofaccess. We did that and that is a recorded fact.

That meant that the impact on the public purse could beexpected to rise dramatically. The question that arosethen was whether, if we could overcome the issue ofinequity in respect of access, we should automaticallysee the increase in the cost to the public purse as a markof success or conclude that we had found a way tomake the system fairer. We had overcome the lottery,that was clear. We had seen the services become morewidely available and had seen the cost of services rise.The question was whether we could sustain the trendsin respect of that system. Our conclusion was that thereis no Santa Claus in government. We had to balance therights of the claimant on one hand against the impact onthe taxpayer on the other. It is all right to criticise andsay we were only interested in the bottom line and thatwe should have been interested in people rather than thedollar sign, but that is a very cheap shot. As Labor willlearn, in government someone has to count the cost ofcompassion. Whatever else is said about the Kennettgovernment I do not think anybody could claim that ittook other than a responsible view in respect of publicfinances and the stewardship of the public purse.

The irony is that in the very next breath the Bracksgovernment is recognising the cost factor in thechanges to the scheme. We are told in thesecond-reading speech that $45 million has beenallowed over three years for the newly introducedclassification of compensation under the heading ‘Painand suffering’. We suspect that the actual cost willprove to be much greater than that. We are prepared towait and see, but I ask the minister to explain thedifferences that I believe are inherent in the figuresquoted in the second-reading speech. For instance, weare told as justification that retrospectivity could not beafforded that:

Before the changes in 1997, awards for compensation andcosts amounted to between $40 million and $50 million eachyear.

On that basis:

It would be too heavy a burden to impose such a three-yearliability upon the community today.

So here is a government saying it would cost between$40 million and $50 million a year — that is the way Iread it, each year — and yet we are told that by somestroke of a miraculous pen the reinstatement ofcompensation for pain and suffering can be fundedthrough a staggered allocation of $45 million over thenext three financial years. It seems to me to be a



fundamental mistake in the costing. On that basis if noother I put the government on notice that theOpposition parties will be watching carefully theoperation of the expanded scheme.

I note the decision to not backdate the changes over thethree years that the current regime has been operational.Honourable members are told again in thesecond-reading speech that the constraints on fundingare tighter than they have ever been. The precise quoteis:

Given the work ahead of us in rebuilding Victoria —

I should put ‘[sic]’ there —

the constraints on funding are tighter than they have everbeen.

I wonder where the minister has been. I might also saythat it is interesting to see that the government hasdiscovered fiscal responsibility. But what a difference aday makes, particularly if it is the one that has seen thegovernment change hands! It is a bit rich that theBracks government is blaming the Kennettadministration for the decision to not backdate,particularly as the former government has just left amassive budgetary surplus in the path of the incominggovernment. I consider it appropriate to compare thatwith the position that confronted the then governmentin 1996 when it was still cleaning up the horrific messleft after the last Labor administration.

But honourable members are told by way ofjustification that the liability for funding retrospectiveclaims rests with the community, that there is noparticular section of the community that can bemilked — that is the inference that can be drawn — asapplied to workers compensation where the employersof the state were seen to be fair game.

My question is: what is the point in saying that theretrospective claims rest with the community? I wouldhave thought that this is public funding and all theclaims rest with the community. I do not see muchdifference between offering a retrospective claim andoffering one in the future. I wonder what school ofeconomics Labor members attended. This is a publiclyfunded system and I cannot see why the governmentshould offer that explanation to justify the decision tonot retrospectively change the rules. I am not arguingfor retrospectivity but I think it is a hollow justificationto say it has to be funded by the public purse, that thegovernment cannot afford to go back, and,‘Retrospectively we would love it but it is the fault ofthe Kennett government’. What arrant nonsense!

On the issue of costs, I turn to that last factor that drovethe need to review what was the scheme in 1996. Imake the point that the Labor Government iseffectively reinforcing today the very concern thatultimately determined the then government’s positionin 1996 to the extent that honourable members are nowseeing restrictive parameters on the new pain andsuffering component that is euphemistically called‘special financial assistance’. I note there is a maximumof $7500 in the worst and most heinous of crimes. Forthe vast majority the awards will be substantially less,and perhaps as little as $100 given that that threshold isnominated in the lowest category of crime. I also notethat the victims will be able to obtain compensationwithout having to prove an injury, so I suspect thatthere will be many awards at the lower end of the scale.

I find it interesting and a reinforcement of the veryissue the then government confronted in 1996 about theappropriateness of offering compensation for pain andsuffering to see the classifications now being attempted.One can therefore conclude that the reintroduction ofcompensation for pain and suffering is absolutelysymbolic. I prefer the description of ‘tokenistic’ used byMr Wynne, the honourable member for Richmond inthe other place. I saw the description in thesecond-reading speech that here was the opportunity tohave suffering validated by the state. That is clearlytokenism.

So much for the strident criticism directed at theKennett government’s decision of 1996, and so muchfor the description that the legislation was outrageous. Imake the point that here is the chance for the Bracksgovernment to review and reverse the 1996 changes.The bottom line is that the vast majority of the reformsthat were introduced under the Kennett government in1996 have been retained, and that is hardly consistentwith the notion that they were outrageous.

The final factor that underpinned the 1996 changes wasthe basic question of whether it was appropriate toaward public funding to victims of crime ascompensation for pain and suffering. I recall the debatewell because it was across the community, across partylines and in the chamber and many associated issuessurfaced as a result of that debate. I make the point thatpain and suffering by definition is subjective and almostimpossible to measure objectively.

That raises the basic question of how one is tocompensate for pain and suffering, because the impactwill vary dramatically between individuals. I note, asdid Mr Furletti, that in respect of the award between theminimum and maximum nominated in the bill there isabsolutely no assistance offered to the tribunal as to



how the award should be made and how the assistanceshould be assessed. The Bracks government may wellcome across exactly the same issues that confronted theformer government in 1996. To this point the issue hasbeen dodged. All the government has said is that theseissues shall be resolved by regulation, so it has notaddressed the hard issue. When it comes down to thecrunch someone will have to say what the entitlement isin a particular instance and how that assessment is to bemade, because by definition it is personal and cannot beobjectively measured.

Are we to see awards increased because some particularclaimant is better at describing the injury? Are we tosee awards vary because one particular claimant is lessable to cope psychologically? I will bet that someonewill come up with a solution that to overcome theinequities that will inevitably arise in respect of theawards, they should be standardised. The vagaries ofthe assessment on an individual basis will be taken out.I suspect that the debate will turn full circle.

At the end of the day should it really come down tohow the claimant is able to describe his or her pain andsuffering or how clearly that pain and suffering isdescribed by a third party? There are many other issuesof potential inequity; and anyway, the concept of beingcompensated for pain and suffering will logically tendtowards the victim maximising and perhaps evenexaggerating the injury. That is not something that Ienjoy describing but it is a fact of life. When you openthe door to a claim for compensation that depends onhow badly you say you have been injured isn’t there anatural tendency for claimants to want to maximise theaward made?

It is inconsistent with the notion that compensation ismeant to be taking them back to their circumstances sofar as possible before the incident. We may underminethe recovery process by superimposing pain andsuffering compensation over the whole process. Thatmay be putting too hard a view on it, but it comes fromexperience in the field. The return to pain and sufferingcompensation, albeit well meaning, may come back tobite the Labor Party hard. That may not be fair on somewho are caught up in the process. I can say with somesureness that the allocation of public funds for pain andsuffering for victims of crime will not guaranteecertainty or assist the recovery process. Against thatbackground I suggest that the community may not beconvinced that it is getting good value for itsinvestment.

When in government the coalition took the position thatthere was no guarantee that public funding allocated tocompensate for pain and suffering would be a smart

investment. The issue will return and will become moreexpensive for the public purse than first anticipated bythe Bracks government. For all that, we acknowledgethat the concept of reintroducing pain and suffering as acompensable factor for victims of crime was a specificcommitment of the Labor Party, and on that basis thebill will not be opposed.

The fundamental reasoning behind the National Party’sposition goes to the mandate theory, upon which I amnot certain governments should rely, but in this caseLabor told the Victorian community that it wascommitted to the reintroduction of compensation for thepain and suffering of victims of crime, and the rub isthat the compensation is so heavily restricted. In anyevent, we are yet to see the regulations that willdetermine the precise nature of the awards. There hasbeen some fast footwork rather than the delivery of aspecific commitment.

I suggest that those who supported Labor on the basisof this commitment should be more unhappy with thebill than members of the Liberal and National parties. Itis not because Labor has reintroduced pain andsuffering compensation but rather the extent to which ithas not met the specific commitment. I read theprotestations of Labor members in 1996, when theywere in opposition, and I relived the strident criticismand saw the graphic undertakings given prior to the lastelection. I suggest all Labor Party members in thischamber should be embarrassed because the bill makesnothing like the changes they promised from thecomfort of opposition.

When all the tumult and the shouting dies down, thislegislation is a Clayton’s return of pain and suffering asa compensable basis of compensation for victims ofcrime. Four categories have been introduced overwhich compensation for pain and suffering is claimableranging from a few dollars to a maximum of $7500 forthe most heinous of crimes and demonstrable harm.

I make the point, as I did by way of interjection duringthe Honourable Carlo Furletti’s contribution, that therewas no restriction on pain and suffering as a componentof compensation entitlements under the previousregime. I cannot find any circumstance where pain andsuffering as a head of compensation within theaggregate was restricted. It is clear that the return ofpain and suffering in this case is tokenistic, and itreminds me of the pup that was sold to the unions onthe return of common-law access in workerscompensation claims. Here we have Labor on thetightrope, on the one hand addressing the grandiosepromises recklessly thrown around from the comfort ofopposition and the need to deliver to those to whom



those promises were primarily directed and from whomsupport was drawn, while on the other hand addressingthe other side of the coin, the overall publiccommitment to financial responsibility.

If only governments could be all things to all people,but they cannot. Labor should get ready for thechickens to come home to roost. The bill shall not beopposed.

Hon. M. T. LUCKINS (Waverley) — The LiberalParty does not oppose the Victims of Crime Assistance(Amendment) Bill but it has grave reservations abouthow the amendments will be applied. I take personalexception to the expression ‘symbolic’, as did theHonourable Roger Hallam and other members. Thehonourable member for Richmond in the other placeused the word ‘tokenistic’. As he was the chairman ofthe committee that came up with theserecommendations, I find that very interesting indeed.

Proposed section 1(2)(b) states that one of theobjectives of the bill is:

to pay certain victims of crime financial assistance (includingspecial financial assistance) as a symbolic expression by theState of the community’s sympathy and condolence for, andrecognition of, significant adverse effects experienced orsuffered by them as victims of crime …

It goes on to say in proposed subsection(4):

The scheme provided by this Act is intended to complementother services provided by government to victims of crime.

Other honourable members have outlined the previousscheme introduced in 1996 by the Kennett government.I have had to sit here and listen to the formerAttorney-General, Jan Wade, being shoved from pillarto post, and I have certainly taken great interest in thedebate that took place in the other place.

I shall indulge myself for a moment and reflect on someof the wonderful things Mrs Wade did, particularly forwomen in this state as Minister for Women’s Affairsand Attorney-General. She recognised that 90 per centof victims of crime are women and over many yearsshe made a number of changes to the way justice isaccessed in Victoria. She introduced victim impactstatements, which allow the victim to have his or herday in court and to provide a statement about how he orshe was personally affected so that the judge, the juryand the accused in court are fully aware of the impactthe crime had on that victim.

She also introduced the Crimes (Confiscation ofProfits) Act, which for the first time allowed the profitsfrom all crimes to be confiscated from a convicted

criminal and used by the state to compensate thevictims of those crimes.

She also introduced videoconferencing for victims,which was very, very important for women, particularlyfor women who had been in intimidating situations orwho had been sexually assaulted by someone in adomestic or community setting. It was also animportant change for children, because it allowed themto be interviewed in a non-intimidatory environment.

The original legislation, the Criminal InjuriesCompensation Act, to which Ms Mikakos previouslyreferred, was introduced in 1972 by a Liberalgovernment. Like the Honourable Roger Hallam, I amsick and tired of hearing about the care and compassionof those on the other side of politics. This side ofpolitics has demonstrated its compassion and care overmany years and throughout generations of politicians inthis place. This government does not have a mortgageon care and concern for the community. The formergovernment demonstrated more compassion because itgave people the opportunity to better their lives andstop feeling like victims; they were encouraged to reachtheir full potential.

The 1996 Victims of Crime Assistance bill was amultipronged program and scheme devised to providereal assistance to victims of crime and to those whowitnessed crimes and were affected by them, includingfamily members or friends of the victims. In caseswhere fatalities occurred, legislation was introduced tomaximise the potential for victims’ recovery from thepsychological and physical effects of violent offences.

It should be noted that under the old system on manyoccasions victims of crime had to wait for longperiods — months or even years — to have their day incourt. During that time no counselling was available tothem. Medical research backs up the assertion that iftreatment is not provided to victims very soon after thecommission of a crime, post-traumatic stress disordercan result.

It is not certain that monetary benefits for victims ofcrime for pain and suffering do anything to alleviatefeelings of grief and of being victims. For that reasonthe objective of the 1996 legislation was to provideappropriate services for victims to facilitate theirrecovery. As soon as a crime was reported to the police,the police would either distribute a voucher to thatvictim or provide the telephone number of a victims’referral information service so that that person could beput in touch with people who could help to immediatelywork through the trauma.



Wherever practicable convicted offenders were made topay for the harm they caused to the victims of crime.The procedures in the criminal justice system provideda quick and economical means to redress the harmsuffered as a result of the offenders’ criminal conduct.The provision of immediate counselling was one of thegreatest strengths of the still-existing system. I note thatwhen in opposition the shadow Attorney-General,Mr Hulls, was vocal in 1996 and again in 1997 whenthe Victims of Crime Assistance Act was amended. Hewas very vocal about the fact that the existing systemput in place by the Kennett government was somehowflawed. It is interesting to note that every aspect of thelegislation introduced by the previous government hasbeen retained by the new Labor government.

In opposition Labor certainly gave the impression thatif it won government — Labor members did not plan tobe in government and that is becoming more and moreobvious all the time — victims of crime would receivegreat amounts of compensation for pain and suffering. Ibelieve the compensation offered in the bill adds insultto injury for victims of crime.

The previous government also introduced the victims ofcrime referral service to provide assistance to victims ofcrime throughout Victoria. It was aimed specifically atthe migrant community, the elderly and women.

An article in the Herald Sun of 2 December 1997entitled ‘Victim support service’ quotes Mr Barnettfrom the Victims of Crime Assistance League(VOCAL) and states:

Elderly crime victims are among those most likely to benefitfrom a new network of victim support services to be set upnext year.

Victims of Crime Assistance League president, Mel Barnett,yesterday said the service would help many victims who werenot catered for.

VOCAL has been awarded a state government tender of$450 000 to establish the program throughout themetropolitan area.

…

Mr Barnett said the arrangements would be ‘a major movetowards servicing the 95 per cent of victims who’ve got noassistance previously’.

That referral service worked, and it assisted the mostisolated people in the community.

The previous regime also included what I term propercompensation for primary, secondary and relatedvictims. In her contribution the Honourable JennyMikakos took ownership of the compensation availableand even implied that somehow that scheme ofcompensation formed part of the bill. It does not. It is

retained in the previous system set up by the Kennettgovernment.

I will be in this place for a fair while and I hope by thetime I retire — more particularly during this termbecause I hope members opposite are not still ingovernment when I retire — I will hear the Bracksgovernment acknowledge something done by theprevious government as good, wholesome andcompassionate for the community.

Under the 1996 legislation primary victims wereeligible for assistance of up to $60 000, and thatincluded counselling additional to the counsellingalready provided to them through the other scheme. Itincluded payment of medical expenses and otherexpenses to assist the victim’s recovery in exceptionalcircumstances. That could be seen as a pain andsuffering component, because it was up to the tribunalto decide the exceptional circumstances and theadditional payments. Primary victims of crime werealso eligible for payments for loss of income up to$20 000.

A secondary victim is a person who witnesses a crimeor a parent of a primary victim where the primaryvictim is a child who suffers an injury. Secondaryvictims were eligible for assistance of up to $50 000.Related victims were eligible for part of a pool of fundsof $100 000, and an individual related victim was ableto receive up to $50 000.

Those initiatives were introduced by the previousgovernment, and for all the protestations of the nowAttorney-General when he was in opposition, with theresponsibility of government and some good advicefrom government bureaucrats he has decided that helikes the scheme and he admits that it is working well.

For an explanation of why the pain and sufferingcomponent was removed in 1996 I refer to an Agearticle of 11 November 1996 entitled ‘A better way tohelp victims recover’ by Jan Wade. Because Mrs Wadeis not here to answer for herself as to why she removedthe compensation, I will quote the article to justify herposition. It states:

Compensation for pain and suffering only indirectly assists avictim’s recovery from the crime. Medical research suggeststhat while these payments may benefit victims, compensationdoes not alter later symptoms of psychological suffering.

Further, while it is argued that there is symbolic merit inpayments for pain and suffering, the amounts awarded do notreflect the victim’s suffering and injury. In fact, some victimshave described the amounts as insulting.



I now turn to the compensation being offered by thegovernment for pain and suffering. Categories A, B, Cand D go from $100 in category D for an averageassault up to $7500 for a heinous crime or a particularlyviolent rape. Many victims of crime, and in particularrape victims, feel an additional burden because many insociety do not accept their physical and mental pain.Rape is sometimes seen as a lesser crime.

We have some way to go before rape victims gain fromthe community the respect and support they need.Sexual assault victims I have spoken to often say thatthey feel of less value or worth after the crime. To beoffered between $3500 and $7500 may be consideredpaltry in that category. It may lead to additionalpsychological trauma because they think society deemsthem worthy of only that amount and therefore theymust be worthless. It is fine to have a token gesture, butI question whether the millions of dollars of communityfunds that will be spent on the reinstatement of pain andsuffering as a component of compensation is the bestway to spend that money. I do not believe thecompensation for pain and suffering will ease the painand suffering of the majority of victims of crime.Indeed, many victims of crime will continue to feel likevictims — powerless, threatened, insecure, unsafe andvulnerable — unless they get the psychological helpand support of their families and friends and theunderstanding of the community immediately after thecrime has been committed.

The psychological trauma suffered after a crime does,when swiftly treated, diminish and is proven todiminish, enabling the person to get on with his or herlife. There by the grace of God go all of us with violentand particularly spontaneous crime. A split-second orseemingly spontaneous act will have an effect on themental health of a victim and that person’s ability towork and to interact with his or her family and friends.The best support you can give to a victim of crime ispsychological support to enable him or her to get overthe trauma.

I refer to a victim of crime mentioned in an article inthe Herald Sun of 22 March 1998. The article is entitled‘Hold-up puts a life on hold’. I will not mention theperson’s name, but he was held at gunpoint andpistol-whipped while working at a South Melbournetramway depot in 1994. The article states:

The burglary and attack caused minor physical damage, butthe psychological trauma is constant.

‘It just keeps going through my head’, he said. ‘I can still seehis head and hear the clicking sound of the gun …

He rarely leaves his house and he never opens thewindows or answers the telephone or the door, whichremains locked. He has developed a damaged neckfrom the strain of constantly looking over his shoulderon the rare outings he has with his children. He isseeing a psychologist and has been doing so since thecrime. Regardless of how swiftly this man was treatedafter the crime he is still suffering from post-traumaticdisorder. What sort of compensation would he getunder the scheme? The crime may be seen as justanother assault, which would mean he would beawarded $100, which would be nearly enough for himand his family to go to a pub for a Sunday lunch ordinner.

Hon. C. A. Furletti — It would be a small family.

Hon. M. T. LUCKINS — It certainly would not bemy immediate family. In that case the man would notreceive any benefit from the paltry pain and sufferingpayment. He would not feel any better after what he hasbeen through and, as with a victim of rape, he mightfeel it has devalued the experience he suffered.

They are some of my concerns about how theamendments will affect the community. There is anexcellent booklet available for victims of crime that setsout what to do in the case of a crime against you, afamily member or a neighbour. It describes how toobtain counselling, what to do when you go to courtand how to make a victim impact statement. Thebooklet has been widely available through communityoffices and councils for many years, certainly since1996. I am proud of what the Kennett governmentachieved in this area. I am confident it did the rightthing in introducing the full package in 1996.

From my personal experiences as the patron of theBonnie Babes Foundation, which deals with a differentarea of grief — miscarriages and stillbirths — I knowthat the quicker people who have been traumatised gainassistance, advice and psychological support, the better.If I were a victim of crime — again, thank God thatno-one in my immediate family, which is substantialand now has 23 members, has been involved in aviolent crime but it could happen at any time — Iwould not feel adequately compensated by a paymentof between $100 and $7500. I would expect the supportI needed to get on with my life so I would not have tofeel like a victim for years after the crime has beencommitted.

As I said at the outset, the Liberal Party does notoppose the bill, but it has grave reservations as to howthe amendments will be applied. I wish the bill a speedypassage.



Hon. R. F. SMITH (Chelsea) — I support theVictims of Crime Assistance (Amendment) Bill. Theproposed amendments are the result of many hours ofwork by the review committee. I would like to read intothe record the participants in the review: theDepartment of Justice, including the Victims Referraland Assistance Service and the Asset ConfiscationOffice; the Magistrates Court; the Victims of CrimeAssistance Tribunal; the Office of Women’s Policy; theVictoria Police; the Office of Public Prosecutions; theCommunity Council against Violence; the Federationof Community Legal Centres; the State VictimsAssistance Program Network, Crime Victim Servicesof Geelong, and CASA House. Membership alsoincluded Crown Counsel, a senior lecturer from LaTrobe University and an adviser to Mr Russell Savage,the Independent in the other place.

The review committee was so extensive that it is almostimpossible to suggest that anyone was denied access orwas not represented on the committee. It reflects theBracks government policy of full consultation on thesematters.

I need to explain why the government proposed theamendments to the Victims of Crime Assistance Act.Not only was it a policy that the Labor Party took to thelast election and committed itself to, but it wasnecessary to reinstate the compensation for thosevictims, it having been removed by the previousgovernment. The Kennett government had the view thatit was not necessary or appropriate to compensatepeople with cash. Indeed, the former Premier wasreported in the media as saying that it was inappropriatefor them to be compensated with cash because victimsof crime would spend their compensation on holidays,perhaps buy red coats or pay off some of theirchildren’s debts. I thought to myself when I heard that,so what! Surely people can do whatever they like withthe compensation. It is the government’s view and myview that they should do just that.

That indicates the mind-set of the previous government:‘No, don’t give them any money. They don’t knowwhat to do with it, so give them nothing!’. As I said, thegovernment made it clear that it would reinstatecompensation because it believes it is important todemonstrate to victims of crime that it cares andrecognises their pain and suffering — even if it issymbolic, as some people suggest.

I have heard previous speakers talk about the rorting ofthe system. I am not suggesting for one second that I donot believe any rorting took place; I dare say some did.However, it is unacceptable to use that as an excuse todeprive the genuine victims. I have been approached by

a member of the Liberal Party on this issue who said heknew of examples of people from the Aboriginalcommunity taking it in turns to seriously assault eachother and putting each other in hospital, being foundguilty, and the victim collecting compensation. Sometime down the track it would be the other person’s turn.I think that is outrageous. I asked for evidence but therewas none forthcoming. It was basically hearsay andagain goes to that mind-set, which is unacceptable tothe government.

The real issue is: is it reasonable for society torecognise victims and compensate them in some smallway for their pain and suffering? The government’sposition is clearly yes. If compensation is given, whataward or levels should apply, and in whatcircumstances? The bill contains four categories — A,B, C and D. Category A covers offences such as rapeand incest and has minimum award compensation of$3500 and maximum of $7500; category B coverskidnapping, armed robbery, et cetera, and has minimumcompensation of $1000 and maximum of $2500;category C covers indecent assault, attempted rape,et cetera, with a minimum of $500 and maximum of$1000 compensation; and category D covers offencessuch as assaults and threats, with a minimum of$100 and a maximum of $500 compensation. Thoseamounts are by no stretch extravagant and againdemonstrate that we simply need to recognise that thosepeople have been injured in some way. It is not the fullamount of compensation they could claim anyway.

The issue of retrospectivity has come up again, andclearly the government’s position is that noretrospectivity will apply for people who were victimsduring the period from 1 July 1997 until now.However, they will still be eligible to apply forfinancial assistance — for example, medical andcounselling expenses and loss of income. The real factis that the government simply could not afford to backpay three years of claims with all the associatedproblems, in much the same way as occurred withWorkcover.

It is fair to say that the previous government was cold,uncaring or misguided in the way it removed provisionfor compensation for pain and suffering. The Bracksgovernment promised to reinstate compo. The bill doesthat, and I commend the bill to the house.

Hon. B. W. BISHOP (North Western) — I willmake a few brief comments on the Victims of CrimeAssistance (Amendment) Bill. Many honourablemembers have already spoken on the bill and there area number to come, and most of the technical issues in ithave been covered. Before I commence my comments I



express my concern about the political nature of thesecond-reading speech. In my time in this house I havenot seen one that is so blatantly political. Myunderstanding is that the second-reading speech shouldexplain in everyday terms the absolute intent of the bill.It is a privilege the government and the Parliamenthave, and they should take note of that. I believe it is anabuse of the house to have a political slant displayed inthe second-reading speech. There are plenty ofopportunities for that to come out in the debate thatfollows the second-reading speech.

I note the objectives that are outlined in thesecond-reading speech. I will read them, as they areadmirable. The first is:

equity of access to fair compensation …

which is very good. The second states:

predictability and consistency in decision making, to assist thevictims and their advisers to determine the amount they mightreasonably expect to obtain from the tribunal …

The third objective is:

simplicity and accessibility to those administering the schemeand to those seeking benefits under it …

The final objective is:

fiscal responsibility to enable the scheme to be sustainableand capable of being administered within its budget.

The last objective is pertinent and should be recognised.

I took some time to examine the history of the Victimsof Crime Assistance Act. From memory, I think it wasintroduced in 1996 but came into effect on 1 July 1997.It is important for the house to note during the debatetoday that the primary thrust of the originating billremains — that is, a strong attempt to get help andassistance to victims of crime quickly, which is mostimportant. The originating bill certainly had that thrustin it, and I am glad to see that primary thrust has beenfollowed through with the amendments in this bill.

As we talk about this particularly sensitive issue it isimportant to note that the legislation is an attempt totreat victims of crime as fairly and equitably aspossible. Without doubt the previous government madethat attempt, and I believe earlier speakers haveexplained that clearly to the house.

I clearly remember the Auditor-General’s report in1995. In the report the Auditor-General — theindependent umpire of the state, if you like — statedthat over the five years from 1995 to 2000 the cost ofcriminal compensation allocated from that process

would be about $630 million, which is a lot ofmoney. In other words, the system was generatingpayments of about $100 million a year, and by theyear 2000 could reach about $160 million. If myrecollection is right, and I believe the Auditor-General’sreport raised some concern about this aspect, it meansmore than half the payments made to victims ofcrime — the people we are all concerned about — werefor offences that were more than two years old. In fact,some were more than three years old.

It is clear from my research into the trauma experiencedby victims of crime that all compensation, in whateverform should be provided as quickly as possible. Whenvictims of crime receive compensation in dribs anddrabs it brings back their terrible memories, and they donot want to be reminded of the crimes. Compensationcan take many forms — for example, it can be for thepayment of counselling expenses or to make up for theloss of salary forgone. Whatever form it takes, it needsto be made quickly, or it can have a deleterious effecton the unfortunate victim of the crime.

I noted from my research that before the Victims ofCrime Assistance Act took effect in 1997, the level ofcommunity understanding of the victims of crimecompensation system was low. Most victims did notknow of or were not sure about what the systemoffered. That lack of understanding may have been oneof the reasons for the delays of up to three years thatsometimes occurred in compensation payments. Myresearch also revealed that in 1995–96 the number ofoffences committed that could have led tocompensation claims was 31 000 — a huge number —but only about 8500 people applied for compensation. Iwas concerned about those figures, and concluded frommy research that the reason for them was that thosewho knew about the system applied for compensationand those who did not know about it did not. I do notknow whether those who applied knew lawyers orsolicitors or had contacts such as counsellors whosteered them in the right direction, but I do know thatthose numbers are not fair and equitable. The act thatwas put into place in 1997 provided equity and fairnessin those circumstances.

I then looked at the figures for 1998–99, when almost36 000 victims of crime requested help with andinformation about compensation. One has to ask whythat big jump in numbers occurred. I believe one reasonwas that under the procedures then in place the policeinformed victims of crime with whom they came incontact what they could do about receivingcompensation. I have no doubt that those victims weretraumatised and looking for help, and that information



was given to them at a time when the events were freshin their minds and they were able to act on it.

It is true that the right to claim compensation for painand suffering was removed in 1996. However, to be fairmembers of the government should recognise the widerange of substantial changes to provisions that werecontained in the 1996 bill, including provision forprimary, secondary and related victims. The bill alsoprovided for a strong element of counselling, whichwas an important issue for victims of crime who werelooking for help. I again make the point that whilemonetary compensation is always helpful, often whatvictims of crime seek and need the most is counsellingto ensure that they can recover from their traumaticexperiences. The 1996 bill also provided for thepayment for loss of earnings, which is important intoday’s world, particularly for victims of crime wholose earnings through no fault of their own. The billalso provided for compensation for other lossesreasonably incurred to be claimed.

The fundamental changes made by the Victims ofCrime Assistance (Amendment) Bill are contained inproposed section 8A(5), which inserts four newcategories of special financial assistance —categories A, B, C and D — in the form of a table thatsets out the amounts applicable to each category ofclaim. I will not go through that table because it hasbeen well covered by previous speakers.

I note with interest that proposed section 8A(6) allowsflexibility within those categories in the awarding ofsuch payments. The Honourable Roger Hallammentioned that the bill results from a pre-electionpromise made by the Labor Party which it is nowputting in place. I also note from the second-readingspeech that the government has allocated $45 million ascompensation to victims of crime to be staggered overthe next three financial years. I suspect that the bestintentions of any government would be to guard againsta future blow-out in the allocation of that money suchas was occurring in 1996. I urge the government tokeep a close watch on the trends as the application ofthe new system starts to bite.

All honourable members feel for victims of crime.However, as I read through the bill and look at theamounts I cannot help but think, whichever way I lookat it, that it is simple tokenism. Victims of crime want abit more than a symbol, as referred to in thesecond-reading speech. I have been fortunate not tohave been a victim of crime. However, if I were, Iwould not be very impressed with mere symbolism. Iwould want all the help I could get as quickly as I couldget it. I hope I am not being too cynical. I certainly

would not be interested in the symbolism or tokenismthat I see in the bill and have heard mentioned byhonourable members during the debate. People whofind themselves in the traumatic situation of beingvictims of crime need counselling and some financialcompensation as provided for in the bill. However, Ibelieve the tokenism that it also contains is unfortunate,given the hue and cry of the current government’spre-election promise.

I congratulate the government on having madeprovision for children in the bill; it is a worthyinclusion. The structure and philosophy of the 1996originating bill remains unchanged — that is, thatvictims of crime should be given assistance as quicklyand as humanely as possible to ensure that they get overtheir traumatic experiences.

The main change proposed by the bill is that thegovernment has honoured its pre-election commitmentand restored the right to claim compensation for painand suffering. I do not oppose the bill.

Hon. A. P. OLEXANDER (Silvan) — It gives mepleasure to contribute to debate on the Victims ofCrime Assistance (Amendment) Bill. The bill dealswith an important and serious issue for Victorians whohave suffered or continue to suffer as victims of crime.In doing so I acknowledge the fine contributions thathave already been made by members of the Liberal andNational parties. Both parties have an abidingcommitment to assist in every way possible thoseVictorians who, through no fault of their own, find theirlives and the lives of those closest to them disruptedand negatively impacted upon by criminal acts.

The opposition has resolved not to oppose the billbecause although it builds on many of the excellentinitiatives taken by the previous Attorney-General, theHonourable Jan Wade, and the previous coalitiongovernment, significant aspects of the legislation causethe opposition serious concern and misgivings, mainlyabout the direction in which the government is heading.

It is important to review some of the history relating tocrimes compensation in Victoria because one neverknows when a government may choose to changehistory. The house has heard in this debate and has readin debate in the other place how history is beingchanged.

In 1972 a Liberal government introduced compensationfor crime victims under the Criminal InjuriesCompensation Act. That covered expenses that wereactually and reasonably incurred as a result of death orinjury, pecuniary loss as the result of the inability to



work and other pecuniary losses including the loss ofdependants of victims. The maximum sum prescribedin that legislation for pain and suffering was $3000. In1972 not much was understood about the real impact ofcrime on victims and not much thought or effort wasput into that area by government. Even so, minoramendments to the legislation were made in the 1980sby the then Labor government. The amendments werelargely inconsequential and simply sought to build onthe original legislation.

A visionary and groundbreaking change occurred in1996 when the coalition government changed the focuscompletely. It concentrated on responding to the realneeds of victims of crime. It was the product of aconcerted government effort, working hand in handwith the community and professionals in the area. Inher second-reading speech on the Victims of CrimeAssistance Bill Hansard of 31 October 1996 recordsthe then Attorney-General, Jan Wade, as having said:

The government wishes to change the focus of criminalinjuries compensation in Victoria by developing a schemewhich is far more responsive to the needs of victims. Over theyears a perception has developed that the needs of offendershave received a higher priority than the needs of victims. Thegovernment will address this perceived imbalance, in partthrough the creation of the victims of crime assistancescheme. The bill is an integral part of the scheme.

The scheme will include:…

immediate counselling services for victims (to be knownas the victims counselling scheme); and

the establishment of the Victims Assistance Agency,which will refer victims of crime to appropriate servicesand coordinate resourcing of those services. There willalso be an extra $2 million per annum to fund specificvictim support projects.

It is important to note that the scheme and the agency willoperate within the context of many other valuable servicesprovided to victims by government, both state andcommonwealth, including Victoria Police and a variety ofnon-government bodies and individuals throughout Victoria.

Today the house is debating a bill, which, in true Laborstyle, tinkers at the edges of what was then a real andimportant reform in a crucial area. The bill does notcontribute anything new to the process of victimcompensation in Victoria.

History has shown that before and since 1972,honourable members have tried to come to grips notonly with what constitutes adequate compensation — Iemphasise the words ‘adequate compensation’ — forcrime victims, but most importantly they have grappled,and the house today is grappling, with what constitutes

the most relevant and appropriate form of governmentresponse to victims and their families.

For its part, the opposition strongly believes theobjective of government should be so far as possible torestore victims of crime to the situation that prevailedbefore the crimes were committed. The oppositionacknowledges that to a small degree, that involvesmoney and financial payments, but to a larger degree itstrongly believes any such restoration must involvesupport services that address the fear, anxiety, traumaand other human and psychological issues thatdebilitate many victims of crime and often preventthem from re-entering society. That is the opposition’sprimary purpose in debating the bill.

I refer to an article by Carolyn Webb in the Age of10 September 1999 entitled ‘Minister: don’t forgetvictims’. The article is instructive and governmentmembers should pay attention to the federal minister’scomments on the issue. It states, in part:

The criminal justice system had much to learn about theimpact of crime on victims, the justice minister, SenatorAmanda Vanstone, said yesterday.…

Senator Vanstone said victims could suffer financial loss,property damage or injury. Less obvious, but often just asdevastating, were psychological wounds.

‘Even relatively minor crimes like burglary can cause usshock, confusion, helplessness, anxiety, fear and depression’,she said.

…

In the longer term, many victims no longer felt safe, andcommonly saw themselves as weak or helpless, needy,frightened or not in control.

Senator Vanstone said there was a societal trend towards‘restoration’ of victims of crime, which she believed couldhelp ‘many, many more victims than could ever becompensated for by dollars’.

Academics define restoration as a holistic approach, involvingrecognising victims’ rights, community support and involvingthem in the legal process.

The act Jan Wade left Victoria introducedgroundbreaking reforms and addressed the very issuesthat the federal minister referred to in that Age article.Speedy resolution was one of the biggest reforms of thenew Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal. It has beenwell canvassed in the debate that people waited for twoor three years for restitution, thereby detrimentallyimpacting their recovery and re-entry into society.

In the original legislation Jan Wade provided for accessto immediate counselling services for grief and traumato be available to victims through a voucher system orthrough a help line, which would subsequently refer



victims to those services. Jan Wade also built a greaterawareness of the support services through the thenVictims of Crime Assistance Agency and its associatedhelp line, which had never operated before in Victoria.She introduced that reform because the overwhelmingevidence was that most victims of crime did notappreciate that they were entitled to assistance in thefirst place. The vast majority were not taking up any ofthe offers of assistance then on offer by thegovernment.

As has already been well canvassed in this place, JanWade also established the primary, secondary andrelated victims categories and gave victims access tofunds designed to restore them in practical andimportant ways. I will not go through the definitions ofthose categories because other honourable membershave already done so.

As I said, the Labor government seems content merelyto readjust the settings on a machine that has alreadybeen built — and built by somebody else. It alwayslikes to beat the drum loudly and claim the moral highground on social reform. Everybody knows that theLabor Party in Victoria is an imposter on social reformand as every day passes, more Victorians realise thatfact.

The bill extends compensation to victims of crime onthe basis of a significant adverse effect. That mayinclude grief, distress, trauma or other forms of injuryin various circumstances. It is important to recognise —this is where the debate seems to hinge — that the billreintroduces compensation for pain and suffering underthe victims of crime scheme.

Compensation at the top end of the scale is $7500 andat the bottom $100. Two intermediate categories allowcompensation payments of $500 to $1000 and $1000 to$2500.

This whole debate is really about a question ofpriorities. The previous government believed thatcompensation for pain and suffering only indirectlyassists victims’ recovery from crime. Previous speakershave cited medical research that goes to the fact thatwhile compensation may benefit victims it fails to alterthe symptoms of psychological suffering. As a questionof priority the former government decided to divertresources toward practical services that more directlyassist in the recovery of victims and their restoration tothe community. The fact is that decisions needed to bemade about how to allocate financial resources tovictims of crime at that time. The decision was made toallocate them in a relevant and appropriate way. Thatconsideration should still be the guiding principle in a

bill such as this, but it appears that this government ismoving away from that principle.

Balancing the issues of fiscal and social responsibilityis an important matter. In 1995 an Auditor-General’sreport on this area forecast that between 1995 and 2000the cost of compensation via the Crimes CompensationTribunal would be in the vicinity of $630 million. Itwas running at between $100 million and $160 millionper year over the period, and the $160 million wastowards the end of that time. Clearly the old system wasrunning out of control and was on the way toinsolvency. Not only was it fiscally reckless but it wastoo slow, with many awards being made more than twoyears after the event, and compensation was notaccessible to the majority. In 1995–96 only8500 victims of 31 000 claimable offences applied forcompensation under the scheme. However, by1998–99, after changes were introduced by the formercoalition government, over 35 000 Victorian crimevictims were accessing a range of restorative servicesvia the new scheme help line. That is a hugeturnaround, and it indicates that the reforms put intoplace by the previous government and formerAttorney-General Jan Wade were well targeted andtaken up and supported by the community.

I shall quote from an article in the Herald Sun of5 November 1999 which reinforces that point. It isentitled ‘Victim payments’ and was written by NicolaWebber. The article states:

Victims of violent crime in Victoria were given an average of$4702 in the past year to help them recover from theirordeals.…

But the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal made 656payments for assistance in the past year — a massive 429 percent increase from 1997–98.

The tribunal provides cash for victims to help pay for theircounselling and medical expenses.

These are practical measures and on all the evidencethey were taken up strongly by members of thecommunity who were victims of crime. A 429 per centincrease is phenomenal for a program such as this.

Now we see that the government seems to be trying tomove back to the past with this bill. Restoring pain andsuffering payments may not only have a very negativepsychological effect on victims who are suffering fromself-esteem problems and do not need to be told thattheir pain and suffering is worth $100, $500 or$1000 or whatever, but also, and this will come hometo roost for the government at some time, it will havevery real fiscal impacts — it will take a fiscal toll.



There is a growing body of professional opinion inVictoria and Australia that indicates that to place amonetary value, particularly such a small or — as thegovernment describes it — symbolic monetary value onhuman pain and suffering could lead to significantadverse effects of its own in the mind-set of victimswho are suffering self-esteem problems as a result oftheir experience. To be told that the state deems theirpain and suffering to be worth only $100, $500 or$3500 in some cases is not only insulting but representsa commodification of human suffering which many seeas unworthy of any government.

Even more seriously, the advent of pain and sufferingpayments will necessarily place great financial strain onthe existing resources of government and the servicesthat are supported by the community and are working.These services are practical and assist people. Theyinclude grief counselling; fear and trauma counselling;counselling for re-establishing interpersonalrelationships — something many people have problemswith after a traumatic crime experience — and manyother restorative measures that are in place at this time.

In the year following the introduction of the schemebudget estimates revealed that 12 000 Victorians wereexpected to go through the full level of counsellingservices. Surprisingly, the budget papers for 2000–01,the government’s own budget, put that estimate at8000 people. This represents an expected drop of4000 in the number of people who are expected to gothrough the full counselling service set up by theprevious government. In the budget documents this isput down to the introduction of impending legislation,which I assume is this legislation. It is a staggeringthing!

What is the government really saying here? Is it tryingto tell this Parliament and the people of Victoria that thenumber of people requiring counselling services as aresult of crime in this state will be magically reducedbecause money has been paid to victims for their painand suffering? That is an absurd proposition, and Ipersonally do not feel that that is what the governmentis saying. The real story behind that budget statistic isthat money had to be found to pay for thereintroduction of pain and suffering compensation. The$50 million which is budgeted for every year will havereal consequences for practical services being offered topeople in this state. We on the opposition side see thatas a socially retrograde step.

The record of the previous coalition government in thisarea is strong. It does the current government no creditto attack the commitment of the previous governmentso far as victims of crime are concerned, and that is

what government members have done in the other placeand in this place. It is time that type of thing stoppedbecause it does government members no credit. JanWade was one of the great reformist attorneys-general,and her record speaks volumes.

I will refer briefly to some of the major groundbreakinginnovations that Jan Wade introduced when she wasAttorney-General in Victoria. In 1993 she restructuredthe Victorian Community Council Against Violence tocreate task forces on victims of crime, violence againstwomen and safer communities. She introduced majorityverdicts in criminal trials to limit the number ofunnecessary retrials and discontinuations ofprosecutions. The government should know that aretrial can entail traumatic repetition for many classesof victims of crime and can have a very damagingeffect on the quality of justice.

In 1994 Jan Wade continued the introduction of closedcircuit television in our courts so that victims could giveevidence without having to come face to face with theaccused, another very important reform on behalf ofvictims of crime. She introduced the victim impactstatements which have been referred to in this debate.They allow the appropriate participation of victims ofcrime in the court process. Jan Wade reformed lawsrelating to intervention orders to provide greaterprotection to victims, and in particular she introducedindefinite intervention orders against violent spousesand increased the penalties for breaching suchintervention orders.

In 1995 Jan Wade evaluated the code of practice forsexual assault cases to improve police conduct in theirdealings with victims. These are real reforms, difficultreforms — reforms a previous coalition governmentwas prepared to tackle and achieve. The last reform tobenefit victims of crime that Jan Wade undertook asAttorney-General was the Victims of Crime AssistanceAct, amendments to which we are debating today.

The opposition will not oppose this bill. We will watchclosely to see if these changes lead to the diminution ofthe restorative services that Jan Wade worked so hardto achieve for victims of crime in this state. We will bewatching very closely — members opposite shouldmake no mistake about that.

The government will also monitor the responses ofvictims to the symbolic awards for pain and suffering toensure a negative response does not impede or slowdown their recovery and restoration to society. I wishthe bill a speedy passage.



Hon. D. G. HADDEN (Ballarat) — I support theVictims of Crime Assistance (Amendment) Bill. Indoing so I am pleased to follow in the footsteps of theHonourables Jenny Mikakos and Bob Smith.

The purposes of the bill are set out in clause 1. They arefirstly, to amend the 1996 act to enable primary victimsof acts of violence to be given a monetary award forsignificant adverse effects experienced or suffered bythem, and to increase the amounts that may be awardedto secondary and related victims in certaincircumstances, and secondly, to amend the SentencingAct to reform the process by which victims can recovercompensation from the perpetrators in criminalproceedings without the necessity of having tocommence civil proceedings against the perpetrator.

As was alluded to by the Honourable Carlo Furletti inan earlier debate, clause 4 substitutes proposed newsection 1 in the principal act, which sets out thepurposes and objectives of the act. The objectives are,in part:

(a) to assist victims of crime to recover from the crime bypaying them financial assistance …

(b) to pay certain victims of crime financial assistance … asa symbolic expression by the state of the community’ssympathy and condolence for, and recognition of,significant adverse effects experienced or suffered bythem as victims of crime; and

(c) to allow victims of crime to have recourse to financialassistance under this Act …

The proposed new section also provides that awards offinancial assistance to victims of crime are not intendedto reflect the level of compensation to which the victimmay be entitled at common law or otherwise. Thescheme provided by the act is intended to complementother services provided by government to victims ofcrime. I refer to the famous case of Fagan, where amother was murdered while her children were atschool, which was decided under the Criminal InjuriesCompensation Act by Justice Anderson of the SupremeCourt of Victoria, 1981, VR 887 at 889. The judgmentstates:

The purpose of the act … is not to award damages of the kindcomparable or analogous to damages which an injured party,as a plaintiff, might seek and recover from a tortiouswrongdoer, but to give the victim of a criminal act oromission some solatium by way of compensation out of thepublic purse for the injury sustained, whether or not theculprit is brought to book, and whether or not the culpritmight otherwise be liable to the victim.

That statement from as far back as 1981 has beenfollowed in every subsequent case as the basis ofseeking an award under the earlier criminal injuries

compensation legislation. It was never intended to be anamount of damages that one victim could obtainthrough the courts analogous to damages; it was alwaysintended to be some solatium, an acknowledgment bythe community that the victim had been wrongly dealtwith by a perpetrator.

To give some history I refer to 1998–99 report — thesecond annual report — of the Victims of CrimeAssistance Tribunal, which contains some veryinteresting and apt statistics and information. I willquote from various parts of the report.

At page 3 it is stated that in 1998–99 the tribunal saw a35.5 per cent increase in the number of applicationslodged with the tribunal — that is, from 1200 in1997–98 to 1627 in 1998–99. There was also asignificant rise in the number of awards of assistancemade. In 1998–99 the tribunal made 656 awardscompared with 124 in the first year under the victims ofcrime assistance legislation, an increase of 429 per cent.The average award for assistance decreased by 31.8 percent, from $6902.12 in 1997–98 to $4702.79 in1998–99. Under the Criminal Injuries CompensationAct the tribunal also awarded compensation in2195 applications, with the average award being$9413.03.

At page 15 the report provides details of the paymentsmade in the financial years 1997–98 and 1998–99,including costs and disbursements. In 1997–98 thepayments made by the tribunal totalled $51 020 360,and the total in 1998–99 was $29 356 061. Turning topage 16, the legal costs statistics provided by the reportare divided into two components — legal costs anddisbursements. The legal costs were $2 363 388 anddisbursements were $981 211, a total of $3 344 599.

Under the heading ‘Assistance and compensation’ atpage 17, the report states that during 1998–99 awardstotalling $26 011 462 were held on trust for victimsunder 18 years of age by the Victims of CrimeAssistance Tribunal. As at 30 June 1999, 3599 trustawards had been made totalling $31 221 947. Thoseawards are invested in bank deposits which earninterest.

Page 18 of the report gives details of average awardsvictims of crime assistance legislation. In 1997–98 theaverage award was $6209 and for the same period theaverage award under the Criminal InjuriesCompensation Act was $7865. In the financial year1998–99 the figures were $4702 and $9413respectively.



The number of awards by victim category made underthe Victims of Crime Assistance Act increased from atotal of 124 in 1997–98 to a total of 656 in 1998–99.The number of primary victim awards increased from109 to 559, and the number of secondary victim awardsincreased from 2 to 29. The number of awards madeunder the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983 forthe financial year 1997–98 was 5767, reducingdramatically to 2195 in 1998–99.

The second annual report by the Victims of CrimeAssistance Tribunal, which is for 1998–99, has a tableshowing the locality of crimes by municipality forawards granted in the country. Awards granted featurestrongly in some of our most popular rural centres suchas the City of Ballarat, the City of Greater Geelong, theCity of Greater Bendigo, the City of GreaterShepparton, the Shire of La Trobe, the Shire ofMacedon Ranges, the Rural City of Mildura, the City ofMorwell, the Shire of South Gippsland, the Rural Cityof Swan Hill and the City of Warrnambool. Awardsgranted under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Acttotalled 769 and the number under the Victims ofCrime Assistance Act dropped to 220.

Under the 1972 Criminal Injuries Compensation Actunder Premier Hamer from March 1973 toNovember 1976 the maximum award was $3000. FromDecember 1976 to September 1980 the maximumaward was $5000. From October 1980 to October 1981it was $7500. From October 1981 to March 1984 themaximum award was $10 000.

Under a Labor government the pain and sufferingcomponent was increased. From March 1984 toJuly 1988 the pain and suffering component was $7500,with expenses up to $3000 plus pecuniary losscalculated under the Workers Compensation Act andthe Accident Compensation Act. Pecuniary loss couldbe paid up to one year. From 1 August 1988 until 1 July1997 the pain and suffering component was amaximum of $20 000. The maximum award forpecuniary loss was $50 000, which included the painand suffering component of $20 000.

Pain and suffering was abolished under the Victims ofCrime Act passed in December 1996, which came intooperation on 1 July 1997. I recall that period vividlybecause one of my major areas of practice as a barristerand solicitor during that period was crimecompensation, in the main for women and childvictims. There was concern about how it could beabolished and victims were worried they would befurther victimised and made to suffer because theperpetrators were getting away with it yet again. It wasa difficult period in which to explain to clients that as at

1 July 1997 pain and suffering went out the windowand compensation for it was no longer available.

The bill reinstates what will probably be known in thecommunity as pain and suffering but is described in thebill as an award of special financial assistance forvictims of crime.

Victims, as defined in clause 7 of the bill, are dividedinto three categories — primary, secondary and related.Primary victims are those directly injured or killed as aresult of an act of violence, and secondary victims arethose injured as a result of witnessing a crime, orparents of child victims. Eligibility for an award has notchanged and is based on the balance of probabilities asopposed to being beyond reasonable doubt as isrequired in a criminal trial.

Clause 20 covers child victims so that from 1 January2001 they will be covered for crimes committed againstthem from 1 July 2000. Also included are child victimswho have suffered from an act of violence that occurredon or after 1 July 1997 or where the offender has beencommitted for trial on or after 1 July 1997. Importantly,the victims have two years from 1 July 2000 to lodge anapplication for an award.

Clause 18 allows not only for applications for variationsof awards but also additional time — in particular, childvictims have six years from the date of the originalaward to lodge an application for variation.

Clause 21 refers to section 86 of the Sentencing Act,which deals with the ability of a victim to apply to thesentencing court for compensation. I have not heard ofanybody obtaining compensation in that fashion. Thatconcerns me because victims who are complainants incriminal trials should be encouraged and educatedthroughout the process from the time they have lodgedcomplaints with the police to make applications forcompensation from the defendants or accused. Theperpetrators and offenders should be liable for the harmthey cause to the victims. They should be made to paywhere possible. I do not think they should get offlightly, certainly not at the expense of the public purse.

Criticism has been expressed to the effect that theoffender should not have to be victimised again byhaving to pay money to the victim as well as serving aterm of imprisonment. A popular saying among thecriminal legal fraternity is, ‘If you do the crime you dothe time’.

The Bracks government believes section 86 should beretained so that offenders are made to account to theirvictims. The situation should be looked at from thepoint of view of the victim. In a criminal matter there is



a complainant, the police and those advising the victimson their rights. That is an important right with whichvictims should be acquainted.

There has been criticism that a victim’s application forcompensation restitution under section 86 of theSentencing Act would be a burden on the offender. As Isaid previously, that is too bad! The offender shouldhave thought about that before he or she went downthat path. The victim should not be limited to receivingan award of financial assistance through that avenuebecause of some ill-conceived view by some in thecommunity that the perpetrator should not pay. There isa difficulty with victims applying for compensationunder that section. I have not seen statistics on it; I haveasked and apparently they are not available. Certainlythat avenue of recourse should be encouraged.

The purpose of the bill is relatively simple: to provideassistance to victims of crime. The Bracks governmentmade an election campaign commitment to reinstatefrom 1 July this year compensation for pain andsuffering. That policy commitment will cost anestimated $60 million over four years.

I have received criticism from members of the legalfraternity that the range of awards to be reintroducedunder the bill is not enough and that the maximum of$7500 is not sufficient. Frankly, nothing would ever beenough to compensate a victim of crime, and somevictims consider any amount to be an insult. Thatprobably reveals why some victims do not even applyfor compensation or financial assistance. Thegovernment cannot write an open cheque for victims ofcrime; no responsible government is able to do that.

Another criticism from members of the legal fraternitywho have contacted me is that children who are stillliving with the trauma of assaults perpetrated againstthem before 1 July 1997, and who have not yetdisclosed those offences to the police, will not beeligible for the special financial assistance, except forcounselling assistance, and that that situation is contraryto article 2 of the United Nations Convention on theRights of the Child.

Although I am sympathetic to those views the reality isthat the former Kennett government did not give a hootabout the United Nations Convention on the Rights ofthe Child when it abolished compensation for pain andsuffering for victims of crime, operative from 1 July1997.

Other sections of the bill have been thoroughlyelaborated on by previous speakers and I will not revisitthat ground. The bill goes some of the way towards

rectifying the damage that has been done in the pastthree years by not providing special financial assistanceto victims of crime. I hope the intent of the bill isobvious and that it is supported by both sides of thehouse. On that basis I commend it to the house.

Hon. E. J. POWELL (North Eastern) — I ampleased to contribute to the bill, which the NationalParty does not oppose. The Honourable Roger Hallamand you, Mr Deputy President, gave one of the reasonsfor that — the National Party acknowledges that Labormade an election promise to reintroduce compensationfor pain and suffering to victims of crime.

As a new member of Parliament in 1996 I wellremember the debate on that bill. Although I wasconcerned about the removal of compensation for painand suffering, the debate disclosed that in some casespeople did not receive compensation until two or threeyears after the event. That is clearly not appropriate andthere had to be a better way. During that time victimsbecame frustrated, angry and more stressed.

It is important to note that the Transport AccidentCommission and Workcover believe that recoverycounselling needs to be initiated straight after anincident or accident. I believe that is also true forvictims of crime. The former government’s legislationprovided payments for counselling, medical servicesand pecuniary loss of up to $20 000 for victims ofcrime.

Although pain and suffering lump sum payments wereremoved, other initiatives were put in place tocompensate, such as the referral vouchers from policeand the referral telephone service. If required, victimsof crime were able to immediately access counsellingservices. That was a way of genuinely helping victimsof crime, whether they were personally injured, understress or had suffered trauma.

Members of the government side of the house said theKennett government was uncaring and unfeeling andremoved the rights of victims of crime. During the 1996debate many honourable members listened carefullyand took into account both sides of the argument. Theyfelt very strongly that victims of crime needed genuinehelp in the form of counselling and that it was not just amatter of money. Under that legislation victims ofcrime received referral vouchers or the telephonenumbers of referral services and were able to get helpimmediately. The number of people who received fullcounselling almost doubled.

Many speakers have referred to the detail of the bill so Iwill not go over it again. I shall refer specifically to



proposed section 8A(5) at page 6 of the bill, whichrefers to the categories of acts of violence. I look at theminimum and maximum amounts and wonder who putthose amounts in the bill. For example a rape victimreceives a minimum amount of $3500 and a maximumof $7500. The second-reading speech states that if thereis sufficient significant adverse effect on a rape victimthe maximum will apply. I wonder who will judge thedegree of adverse affect. Honourable members mayknow people who have been raped, and each person isdifferent and sees the act of violence differently. Whowill assess whether the victim is adversely affected anddecide whether the minimum or maximum applies?

Subsection (5) of proposed section 8A to be inserted byclause 7 sets out the minimum payment for victims ofcrime of $100. That may recompense some victims ofcrime for stolen property, but it does nothing to helppeople who require counselling. People who have beenburgled have told me that they are traumatised by thefact that someone has entered their house or flat anddisturbed their property. The flat next to mine wasburgled about a month ago, and the woman tenant saidthat she can no longer go back to the flat. That hasaffected me because I live next door. Someone enteredthe flat in broad daylight and removed her video andtelevision set. I am conscious of the fact that I need tolock my doors and windows. While the payment of$100 may assist someone to replace the property stolenif that property is not insured, it will not help the personwho has been traumatised because she is aware thatsomeone has entered her home, touched her belongingsand gone through her personal effects. How do youcompensate that person for pain and suffering?

The second-reading speech says that compensation isan expression of community sympathy and concern fora person who has suffered a violent crime. Thegovernment says it put this policy to the people at thelast election, but I am concerned that these amendmentsdemonstrate a token concern which may cause insult tovictims of crime.

Mr Deputy President, you referred to the fact that thesecond-reading speech has a political bias. I agree withthat. That should not happen. A second-reading speechshould reflect the intention of the amendments and notin any way demonstrate a political bias.

The second-reading speech is critical of the Kennettgovernment. I join with my colleagues who put on therecord the fantastic work the former Attorney-General,the Honourable Jan Wade, did for the Victoriancommunity. Given that almost 90 per cent of victims ofcrime are women it was appropriate that the formerAttorney-General took a leading role.

Along with my colleague, the Honourable MareeLuckins, I was part of a seven-member committee thattravelled throughout Victoria and examined issues suchas safety, education and justice — all the things wehave talked about today. Members of Parliament wereinvited to host public meetings so that people could puttheir concerns. The committee produced two excellentdocuments entitled ‘Women on the move’. One sectiondealt with women and the justice system. I will refer tojust a few of the initiatives proposed by the committee,because there are pages of them.

The minister’s second-reading speech said thatgovernments need to take into account the special needsof people living in regional Victoria, especially theAboriginal community and the linguistically diversecommunities. The ‘Women on the move’ documentsrefer to developing partnerships between justiceagencies and Aboriginal communities and improvingthe outcomes of the justice system for Aboriginalpeople. The document states in part:

Consult with Koori communities to develop a family violencestrategy, including family strengthening models to promoteeducation, prevention and early intervention responses tofamily violence.

During the consultation process people indicated thatthey wanted additional outreach services to take intoaccount issues relating to the justice system andindigenous communities. People need to be more awareof the problems.

Opposition members have already referred to some ofthe initiatives the former Attorney-General put forward.One such initiative was expanding the availability ofvideoconferencing, remote circuit television witnessfacilities and videorecording of evidence in courts.They are important issues for women, who often do notwant to give evidence in courts. The document furtherstates:

Identify and communicate the issues confronting culturallyand linguistically diverse families and women through policeOperation Ethos. Lectures are designed to meet the needs ofculturally and linguistically diverse women and to focus onthe personal safety of women in their homes and socialenvironment.

The document also states:

Support a newly implemented training program for policewith specific reference to the issues faced by Aboriginalwomen in violent family situations. This training program hasbeen developed with two objectives: to sensitise police toindigenous and gender issues; and to educate the Aboriginalcommunity about police procedures and options to addressfamily violence.



A number of issues related to working with supportservices for people affected by violence. Thecommunity also told the committee — something theformer Attorney-General took on board — that therewas a need for more refuge supports which arelinguistically and culturally responsive. The documentalso states:

Maintain crisis support which is culturally and linguisticallyappropriate and responsive by recognising the diversity of theneeds of women from culturally and linguistically diversebackgrounds.

The government has said it will look at initiating suchprograms. I ask members of the government to examinethe initiatives set out in ‘Women on the move’. Thegovernment should grow those programs. Thedocument further states:

Develop information in formats and languages appropriate forwomen with disabilities, a best practice guide for use bywomen’s refuges and a peer support project for women withdisabilities experiencing family violence.

There was an acknowledgment that some people hadspecial needs and required increased after-hours accessto information, support and referral for women andchildren experiencing family violence. The formerAttorney-General ensured that separate rooms wereavailable for witnesses in all new court buildings and inrefurbishments where possible. That is particularlyimportant for rape, domestic violence and child victims.It is stressful to be in the same room with the personwho has committed the crime.

In response to the minister’s second-reading speech,which implied that the Kennett government washeartless and treated victims of crime in a terrible way,I put on the record my appreciation of the work of theformer Attorney-General, the Honourable Jan Wade.Although the National Party does not oppose the bill, itis important to set the record straight. I wish the bill aspeedy passage.

Hon. KAYE DARVENIZA (Melbourne West) —The Victims of Crime Assistance (Amendment) Billimplements another of the Labor Party’s electoralpromises, which on this occasion is to reinstate pain andsuffering compensation for victims of crime. The LaborParty made that commitment because victims of violentcrime had not been able to obtain compensation forpain and suffering since the former Kennettgovernment introduced the Victims of CrimeAssistance Act in 1996, which took effect in July 1997.

Honourable members opposite have claimed that inremoving compensation for victims of crime the formergovernment was not heartless or showing disregard for

the suffering victims of crime went through, but theywere members of a government that removedcompensation from the principal act. To understand thereal situation honourable members need only cast theirminds back to the statements made by the formerPremier on 3AW about victims of crime receivingcompensation. No wonder people think the formergovernment was heartless and cruel in taking away thatcompensation. The comments made by the formerPremier gave every indication that he was heartless. Nowonder the former government is now the oppositionwhen that was the attitude it took to Victorians who hadsuffered violence.

The Bracks Labor government is committed toconsultation. It sees the bill as introducing acomprehensive process of consultation. Thegovernment believes in compensation and made apromise that it would reinstate compensation forvictims of crime and allocate a significant amount ofmoney for that purpose — in fact, $45 millionstaggered over three years.

In December 1999 the government set up a reviewcommittee to consider how it should implement itspolicy to reintroduce this important level ofcompensation. The government wanted a system thatwas fair, equitable, and financially sustainable. Thecommittee included representatives from manyinterested stakeholders and from a network of victimsassistance programs. The Centre Against SexualAssault, the Community Council Against Violence, andthe Victims Referral and Assistance Service were justsome of the organisations represented. The committeeconsulted widely within the community. The bill isfirmly based on the recommendations made by thecommittee to the government.

The bill does a number of important things. Itdemonstrates the government’s commitment toproviding a comprehensive system to assist victims ofcrime in their recovery. The government is looking at acomprehensive package. One thing it wants is a forumwhere victims can receive a sympathetic andcompassionate hearing and be given the opportunity totell their stories. The Victims of Crime AssistanceTribunal is that forum. A hearing is important becauseit gives the victim an opportunity to have his or her say,to tell his or her story and to have it listened tosympathetically and compassionately.

It is important to provide to a victim the recognitionthat violence has occurred against him or her. It is alsoimportant because it gives those who have experienceda traumatic event the opportunity to have their say, tobe given recognition, and to be able to move on and get



on with their lives and not have the traumatic situationsthey have been through colour their lives now and inthe future.

If a victim of crime has suffered substantial harm afterviolence against him or her, the scheme also providesan opportunity for the state to make a payment onbehalf of the community. Again, this is aboutrecognising that a member of the community hassuffered victimisation and has been through a traumaticevent.

It has been pointed out by previous governmentspeakers that the bill is part of a package or a schemedesigned by the government to provide assistance andservices to victims. A range of services is provided tovictims, such as a counselling scheme that is availablein both metropolitan and regional areas. Services havebeen set up to meet the special needs and circumstancesof a victim of crime. The scheme takes intoconsideration whether someone is from an Aboriginalor a culturally and linguistically diverse background,and also whether a person may suffer from a physicalor mental disability. The system is designed to provideservices and assistance to everyone, including thosewho have special needs, whether it is about where theylive or some special individual needs.

The scheme also provides for a person who hascommitted an offence to be financially accountablewhere possible, and this is an important part of thescheme. It allows the state to seek reimbursement ofmoneys that have been awarded to a victim. It allowsthe state to pursue the person who has been convictedof the crime and to have the money reimbursed by theperson who committed the crime, and it allows thevictim to seek compensation directly from the offenderwho is found guilty of the crime.

The bill makes a number of amendments to the Victimsof Crime Assistance Act. Firstly, the bill willreintroduce compensation for pain and suffering, nowknown as awards of special financial assistance forprimary victims who suffer an injury or other adverseeffects as a direct result of an act of violence. Secondly,it will extend the class of victim to include a personwho has been a witness at the scene of a crime, andparents and guardians who later find out their child wasa victim of an act of violence. They will be eligibleunder the amendments to seek payments in exceptionalcircumstances.

Under clauses 7 and 8 the bill also sets out a proposedmodel for the awarding of special financial assistance.It is aimed at promoting greater predictability anduniformity in the decisions that are made by structuring

award levels based on two factors: the first factor is theseriousness of the offence, with higher awards made formore serious offences such as rape and incest; thesecond factor takes into account the impact on thevictim. Minimum awards are available.

Sitting suspended 6.30 p.m. until 8.02 p.m.

Hon. KAYE DARVENIZA — Prior to thesuspension of the sitting I said that the award structureis based on two factors: the first is the seriousness of theoffence, which I have already talked about; and thesecond is the impact on the victim. Minimum awardsare available to those suffering from grief, distress ortrauma as a result of acts of violence, and morecompensation is available to those victims who alsosuffered direct injuries as a result of acts of violence.

Hon. N. B. Lucas — Are you just filling in time,Kaye?

Hon. KAYE DARVENIZA — Never, Mr Lucas.

Hon. N. B. Lucas — There is no governmentbusiness, so you keep talking. Give us some morebusiness!


Hon. KAYE DARVENIZA — The governmenthas already made it clear that there are a number of billsit would be more than happy to debate. Unfortunatelythe opposition is not prepared to debate them.

An advantage of the new system is that the award levelshave been set to promote equity and to be financiallyresponsible. Another advantage is that no threshold hasbeen set below which compensation is not payable,which was the case prior to 1997. The governmentbelieves victims should not be denied access tocompensation just because the entitlement they mightreceive is small. A wider class of victims will now beentitled and eligible to seek financial assistance.Another advantage is that it will not be necessary forvictims to prove injury to gain access to compensation.

The overall entitlement of an injured primary victimwill be at its highest — I stress that point — since theCrimes Compensation Act was first introduced in 1973.The government is committed to reviewing the awardlevels after three years of operation and to assesswhether any changes need to be made.

Retrospectivity is an issue about which a number ofgovernment members have spoken. As a government,we would like to be able to undo the many injustices wesaw in a whole range of services and areas under the



Kennett government’s crimes compensation system.Crimes compensation was not the only area where therewere injustices; we saw it in Victoria’s hospital andeducation systems and in the reduction of the powers ofthe Auditor-General, to name just a couple. We wouldvery much like to be able to undo those injustices, butwe have to be responsible, and the burden thatretrospectivity would impose on the community wouldbe far too great. Prior to 1997, awards for compensationamounted to between $40 million and $50 million eachyear. A three-year liability of that proportion would befar too heavy a burden to impose on the community.

The bill also provides new mechanisms to improve theprocess for victims to apply for and gain compensationdirectly from offenders.

An Opposition Member — What are they?

Hon. KAYE DARVENIZA — There are a numberof them. One mechanism is that applications forcompensation by victims of crime will be accepted upto 12 months after the offenders are convicted or foundguilty, and not 6 months, which is the current provision.The bill also provides for an extension of that time if itis believed to be in the interests of justice.

A second mechanism is that courts will be able to takeinto account the expanded definition of ‘injury’, whichwill enable those who suffer from grief, distress ortrauma to apply for compensation.

The third point is that the courts will have regard to awider range of documents that may be taken intoconsideration. The courts will be able to awardcompensation on a wider range of issues, includingmedical costs and other expenses.

The bill is important. Prior to the last election thegovernment made a commitment to rectify the unjustand cruel changes made by the previous governmentwhen it removed the right of a victim to claimcompensation for pain and suffering. The bill goes along way towards restoring and putting in place asystem that is fair, equitable and looks after the interestsof those who unfortunately find themselves the victimsof crime. I commend the bill to the house.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Jika Jika) — I shallbriefly contribute to debate on the Victims of CrimeAssistance (Amendment) Bill. Its introduction is part ofan election commitment by the Labor government toreinstate compensation for the pain and suffering ofvictims of crime. It became necessary because theprevious government abolished compensationpreviously payable to such victims.

I have listened to opposition members contribute to thedebate, and their hypocrisy is breath taking. When ingovernment members of the current opposition partiestold the house why it was necessary to remove victims’rights. Having lost government last year and findingthemselves in the political wilderness, they havesuddenly found a conscience. The Honourable RogerHallam tried to defend the indefensible. He bleatedabout how, according to him, the formerAttorney-General, the Honourable Jan Wade, had beenso maligned for all her positive measures.

Jan Wade was responsible for removing the rights ofvictims of crime. Now the Labor government isrestoring those rights. The bill gives fair and equitablecompensation to victims of sometimes horrendouscrimes.

The hypocrisy of opposition members is even moreblatant when one remembers that the then Premier’sjustification for removing the rights of victims of crimewas that a woman had the audacity to purchase a redcoat with the money that had been awarded to her.Consequently, the Kennett government saw fit toremove compensation for pain and suffering for allvictims of crime.

That action was a disgrace; it was done in the context ofthe then Premier running around telling everybody whowould listen about his right to sue people for hundredsof thousands of dollars compensation because hisfeelings had been hurt. Yet he intended to remove thesmall amount of compensation then available to peoplewho may have been seriously injured through no faultof their own but as a result of violent crimes. That wasanother example of the hypocrisy of the previousgovernment and shows how ordinary people suffered atthe hands of that callous and cruel administration.Victorians ultimately saw through the Kennettgovernment and kicked it out.

The opposition parties have nothing to say about thebill and will not oppose it because they are trying topretend they did not mean to remove victims’ rights inthe first place. What a pathetic excuse! One would haveexpected that people of integrity in this place would atleast have stuck to their beliefs.

Hon. N. B. Lucas — That cuts you out.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS — Few members onthe opposition benches could be described in that way.If they had any integrity they would not have agreedwith Jeff Kennett when he walked into the party roomand said, ‘Let’s get rid of the rights of victims who havebeen injured as a result of violence’. Not one opposition



member who has today supported the bill was preparedto get up in the party room and object.

Hon. N. B. Lucas — How do you know? I wasthere and you weren’t.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS — Mr Lucas comesin here with his smart alec comments, but he was notprepared to stand up to Jeff Kennett. So much for hisintegrity! He is happy to support the bill, but the debateobviously makes him uneasy.

Many people become victims of violent crime. It is partof the philosophical approach of the Bracksgovernment to look after people who have been injuredthrough no fault of their own. Although the bill doesnot directly cover that aspect it exemplifies the overallphilosophical approach of the government.

There are crimes committed, for example, in theworkplace by some employers — a very small number,I hasten to add — who have no regard for theiremployees and cause horrendous accidents. In thosecircumstances the government has seen fit to restore thecommon-law rights of those people so they can getcompensation when somebody causes them injury.

Hon. K. M. Smith — We should get compensationfor you coming in here and boring us.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS — I know Mr Smithdoes not like listening to these things; he cannot standhis own hypocrisy.

When this government talks about victims of crime itcan be crime that occurs in the workplace, but crimecan occur anywhere: it can occur at the pub, at the footyor on the road — it can even occur in the ParliamentHouse car park. An honourable member in anotherplace was particularly outraged because she thoughtthat somebody had violated her car, having given it anudge. From the way the honourable member wascarrying on I thought she was going to try to seekcompensation as a victim of crime!

Hon. Jenny Mikakos — She would not get over the$200 threshold at the moment.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS — She might not getover the $200 threshold, especially as she already hadanother car on order. She had a car on order and hasnow picked it up — so much for the crocodile tears ofAndrea McCall.

That honourable member made a very interestingcontribution in another place to debate on this bill. Theother form of violence that occurs in our community is

domestic violence. It is a form of violence which Iexpect is abhorrent to most members. I note that theissue of domestic violence was the subject ofconsiderable debate in another place. A member of thatplace indicated to that house that her husband was thevictim of domestic violence as she had hit him over thehead and knocked him out with a Le Creuset fryingpan. I do not know whether under presentcircumstances the husband would be eligible forcompensation under this bill had he been in Victoria; Isuppose it depends on the extent of his injuries. It justgoes to show that there are forms of domestic violenceand other violence in criminal activity which can resultin injury, often very serious injury, to people in ourcommunity. As a result of the actions of the previousgovernment for a period of about three years thesepeople have had no access to compensation.

Time and again when bills are brought before thehouse, whether it be legislation dealing with theAuditor-General or restoring common-law rights orrestoring the rights in this bill, we see the oppositionsupporting the legislation as it goes through, but eachand every one of the members opposite was part of agovernment in which none of them was prepared tostand up to the previous leader and say, ‘Hang on aminute, we do not really support this’.

Hon. D. McL. Davis interjected.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS — Mr Davis waspart of that government. If he had had any guts backthen he would have done something about it, but he didnot have any guts and that is why he is in opposition.Members opposite are in opposition because they werenot prepared to stand up for a principle. You do notchange your principles every time there is an election;you have principles that you keep. If members oppositereally do not believe these people should getcompensation they should be voting against thislegislation. Members opposite should not be coming inhere and voting for it and then on another occasionvoting against it because the previous leader of theirparty is gone. Time and again we have seen that thisopposition has absolutely no credibility when it comesto these pieces of legislation.

I am happy to put my support for this bill on the record.It is another piece of legislation that brings backfairness and justice and some sense of decency to theVictorian community. I am happy to support the bill,and I hope all other members will support it also.




The PRESIDENT — Order! Mr Theophanous, youcan sit down. You have had your go, just sit down.

Hon. K. M. SMITH (South Eastern) — I came intothe chamber after the suspension of the sittingexpecting to hear a couple more credible speakers.Members from the opposition side and the other sidehave spoken in a very balanced way on the bill.However, after listening to Mr Theophanous wafflingfor probably the past 20 minutes I felt compelled to getup and speak because he was talking absolute rubbish,as he usually does in this house. What annoys me mostis that when we made changes to the legislation — —

Hon. T. C. Theophanous — You were one of thegutless ones; you didn’t stand up to Kennett.

Hon. K. M. SMITH — Our party had a verybalanced debate on the Victims of Crime AssistanceBill when it was introduced and when we made thechanges to the act while in government. I was verycomfortable with the act at the time, and I am stillcomfortable with it.

As a party we agreed not to oppose the bill and in a wayto let the government have its head in bringing backsome of the financial assistance to the people. We donot believe waving a fistful of dollars at people willmake them feel any better. We do not believe thegovernment’s proposal will make people feel anybetter. After a long debate in the party room we agreedto what the government is doing.


Hon. K. M. SMITH — I will not go intodiscussions of what we talked about, but we haveagreed not to oppose the bill. Mr Theophanous got tohis feet and talked about Kennett rolling over us all.The original bill was brought in by Mrs Wade, the thenAttorney-General. We had good reason to introducethat bill because, as I said a few moments ago, it wasnot about a fistful of dollars. It was about us lookingafter people, caring about people; it was about payingtheir medical bills.

It was the former government being able to care aboutpeople enough to say, ‘We will look after you if you area victim of crime. We will look after you andcompensate you with the right amount of counsellingthat you may need’ — ongoing counselling, not5-minute counselling — ‘to help you over the traumathat you have suffered in your life. If you have hadsome problems with medical costs, we will pay forthem. If you are in a position where you areincapacitated and need help in your homes to put inramps and such things, they will be paid for’.

When in government the Liberal Party offered peopleunlimited counselling to try to get them through thetrauma. I thought that was what it was all about —trying to help people, not throwing a fistful of dollars atthem. Now Labor is back in government and it isthrowing around the fistfuls of dollars that were savedby the Kennett government. Labor has just got ahandful of dollars and is throwing money out toeverybody left, right and centre — dollars here anddollars there. It is saying, ‘Let us give them theirmoney!’ That is the biggest problem oppositionmembers have with government members — they aregoing to throw our money out like it was theirs. Thetrouble is it is not theirs; it belongs to the taxpayers.Labor members do not care whether people have beenhurt or wounded because they have been attacked andare victims of crime. All they care about is trying to winthe populist vote and they think the bill will do it forthem.

I see Bob Smith is nodding his head. Unfortunately theHansard reporters cannot see him, but I can see himnodding his head in agreement with everything I amsaying. It is true. I am appalled at whatMr Theophanous put up. It was typicalMr Theophanous, and typical of the way he talks in thechamber.


Hon. K. M. SMITH — He has been found guilty oflying in this house, and nothing has changed. He hasbeen found guilty in this house!

Hon. T. C. Theophanous — On a point order,Mr President, I take strong exception to the languageused by Mr Smith. Not only is it objectionable to mebut it is also untrue factually.

Hon. K. M. SMITH — On the point of order,Mr President, I am only being factual. Mr Theophanouswas found guilty of lying to the house. I am not tellingan untruth; I am telling the truth. Mr Theophanous doesnot tell the truth; he lies.

The PRESIDENT — Order! That expression isunparliamentary, and whether it is true or not true it isstill unparliamentary. The Honourable TheoTheophanous has taken objection to it and I ask theHonourable Ken Smith to withdraw.

Hon. K. M. SMITH — I withdraw, Mr President. Iam glad we had a little break because it gave me anopportunity to look at my copious notes. I put on recordthat Andrea McCall, the honourable member forFrankston in the other place, parked her car in theParliament House car park — —



The PRESIDENT — Order! The bill deals withvictims of crime. Mr Smith had better relate what hesays to the bill.

Hon. K. M. SMITH — I will, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT — Order! Mr Smith knows therules of the house. I have warned the Honourable TheoTheophanous. I will not make an exception forMr Smith.

Hon. K. M. SMITH — I would not either,Mr President, but someone whose car is run into and isa victim of a hit-and-run accident suffers emotionaltrauma, so it is no wonder I want to mention theexposure of Mr Theophanous as a hit-and-run driver. Itwas in the car park here! Andrea McCall, thehonourable member for Frankston, was absolutelydevastated at what occurred to her car out there.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous — On a point of order,Mr President, I am aware of the public debate on theissue and that an honourable member has raised it inanother house. I am also aware that you, Sir, rule on orat least give some guidance on the issues raised withyou. I am happy for honourable members to debatesuch issues in the house but if that occurs it ought tooccur on the basis of everyone in the house being ableto enter into such debates.

Therefore if the honourable member wants to talk aboutan incident that involves me and wants to makeslanderous remarks about it, you, Sir, ought to ruleeither that he has to do so by substantive motion, as youhave done in the past, or that if he is to be allowed tocontinue then it ought to be allowed for all members,which means that I would have the right to raise, forinstance, some matters relating to his pecuniary interestforms.

Hon. K. M. SMITH — Go ahead!

The PRESIDENT — Order! The matter raised bythe Honourable Ken Smith suggested thatMr Theophanous was a hit-and-run driver in a generalsense. A hit-and-run driver means someone who hasbroken a criminal law. It is a crime to be involved in anaccident, head off and not leave your name and address.There has been no such finding as I understand itagainst Mr Theophanous. He assures the house that thatis not the case. He has asked for a withdrawal. I askMr Smith to withdraw.

Hon. K. M. SMITH — I withdraw, Mr President. Itis amazing how some people in this house, such asMr Theophanous, are more than happy to tip the bucketon people but when the truth comes out about their little

misdemeanours they are not too happy about acceptingthem.

I was compelled to get to my feet to refute some of therubbish that Mr Theophanous was talking about, as heusually does in debates. When it made changes to thevictims of crime assistance legislation the formergovernment made decisions on all the right advice.They were the right decisions at the time.

The opposition has said it will not oppose the bill.However, I do not believe that throwing a fistful ofdollars at people will make them feel any better. Ibelieve that caring about people will make them feelbetter. I believe that the right counselling and the rightcompensation so far as looking after them with all theirmedical costs and so forth is concerned is the way togo. Each time Mr Theophanous gets up in this houseand talks absolute rubbish, I will get up and put a fewfacts on the table. If Mr Theophanous want to raise thematter of my pecuniary interests, that is fine by me. If isto be the case, Mr President, I am more than happy totalk about things that were sold out of chemist shopsnot so long ago. Is that okay, Mr Theophanous?

In conclusion, I am more than happy to say that theopposition does not oppose the bill.

Hon. S. M. NGUYEN (Melbourne West) — I amdelighted to debate the Victims of Crime Assistance(Amendment) Bill. It is a most important bill forvictims of crimes. It is also important that societies suchas ours have policies to protect individuals and familiesin the Victorian community.

Prior to its election in 1999 the Bracks governmentpromised to bring back support for people with a familymember who had been a victim of crime. The bill willhelp families in such situations. Listening to thearguments on both sides I believe that honourablemembers are trying to have the bill passed not just forthose who have suffered loss through their families butalso to ensure that everyone has a fair go and getssupport, particularly the poor, who often cannot copewith the burdens of life after a family member hasbecome a victim of crime and is murdered or injured.

The newspapers report that members of the communitywould like to have their cases heard. To summarise thenewspaper articles, many daughters or wives, especiallywomen who cannot protect themselves, are targets ofcrime. The Herald Sun of 24 May reports that a youngwoman was murdered at the Fawkner Cemetery on1 November 1997 while putting flowers on a grave.The family of the murdered victim should havereceived support from the government and the

JURIES BILL


community, and funds should be available to ensurefamilies of such victims receive proper compensation.When the Kennett government was elected it removedsuch measures. The Age of 24 September 1998 reportsunder the heading ‘Wade defends crime victims’service’:

The opposition criticised the freecall hotline, part of thegovernment’s victims of crime assistance service, afterdocuments obtained under freedom of information lawsshowed that on some days no calls were received by theservice at all.

Telephone bills from August 1997 to November 1997 showthat fewer than 10 calls were received on most days …

The Bracks government is reintroducing services tofamilies who most need them. Before the last electionthe Bracks government campaigned on education, lawenforcement and social service policies to make thecommunity aware of what the government can do tohelp when people are in crisis. The child of somefriends of mine was murdered and the family did notknow where to get help or how to organise the funeraland so on. They may have been surrounded by friendsand family who supported them to ensure they couldrecover as soon as possible, but they could not obtainsupport or counselling.

Now the community can have an input. Thegovernment will provide about $60 million overfour years. It is not easy for people to get support tohelp them return to a normal life. The Attorney-Generalwhen in opposition always fought for communityaccess to better services.

The former Attorney-General, Jan Wade, wasquestioned many times about such services and the lossof funding. The bill is important for victims of crime,and families require the support of the government.

The PRESIDENT — Order! I am of the opinionthat the second reading of the bill requires to be passedby an absolute majority. As there is not an absolutemajority of members of the house present, I ask theClerk to ring the bells.

Bells rung.

Members having assembled in chamber:

The PRESIDENT — Order! As the passage of thebill requires to be passed by an absolute majority, I askhonourable members not opposing the passage of thebill to stand in their places.

Required number of members having risen:

Motion agreed to by absolute majority.

Read second time.

Third reading

Hon. M. R. THOMSON (Minister for SmallBusiness) — By leave, I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I thank Mr Furletti for his question about the objectives.The objectives currently exist in section 6 of the act;they have been moved forward and enhanced.

I also thank Ms Mikakos and Mr Hallam, who asked aquestion about retrospectivity and the associated costs.The $40 million to $50 million is based on the oldscheme and the old amounts that would be paid. That iswhy there is a difference in the casting of the dollarsand cents for the retrospectivity, and the $45 millionover the three years.

I also thank Mrs Luckins, Mr Bob Smith, Mr Bishop,Mr Olexander, Ms Hadden, Mrs Powell, Ms Darveniza,Mr Theophanous, Mr Ken Smith and Mr Nguyen fortheir contributions.

The PRESIDENT — Order! So that I may besatisfied that an absolute majority exists, I again askhonourable members supporting the passage of thelegislation to stand in their places.

Required number of members having risen:

Motion agreed to by absolute majority.

Read third time.

Remaining stages

Passed remaining stages.

JURIES BILL

Council’s amendments and Assembly’s amendment

Returned from Assembly with message agreeing to aCouncil amendment, disagreeing with another Councilamendment and seeking concurrence with a furtherAssembly amendment.

Ordered to be considered next day.

ADJOURNMENT


That the house do now adjourn.

ADJOURNMENT


Geological Survey: appointment

Hon. PHILIP DAVIS (Gippsland) — I raise amatter for the attention of the Minister for Energy andResources. On 8 December last year, in response to aquestion without notice from me concerning thetargeting for retrenchment of Mr Tom Dickson, thethen manager of Geological Survey, the ministerresponded by denying involvement in the matter. Theminister said in part:

It may have been the practice of the previous government andprevious ministers to interfere in departmental decisions …

She further stated:

… it is not my intention to intervene to change decisions ofthat nature by the department.

As a consequence of a freedom of information request adocument was released to me last week. The documentis dated 11 January and the time is 11.25 a.m. It is anemail from Mr Terry Bowman, a human resourcesofficer in the department, to the then acting secretary ofthe department, Richard Rawson. It states:

You would be aware that Tom —

meaning Tom Dickson —

and Michael Taylor —

the then Secretary of the Department of NaturalResources and Environment —

signed a three-months employment contract for Tom up to6 February 2000, and that representations have been made bythe Chamber of Mines concerning the termination of hisservices.

The last advice we received on this is that ‘it is in theminister’s office’, and take no further action until advised.

The email seeks a direction from the acting secretary ofthe department. How could it be possible that theminister advised the house on 8 December 1999 that itwas not her intention to intervene to change decisionsby the department, but the department was clearlywaiting for a direction from the minister on the matter?

Fishing: bag limits

Hon. P. R. HALL (Gippsland) — I raise a matterwith the Minister for Energy and Resources on behalfof my constituent, Mr Michael Doran, who operates acompany called Ourway Corporate Cruises Pty Ltdbased in Welshpool. The core of the business is theconducting of fishing charter trips. For single day tripsthere is no difficulty with Mr Doran’s clients landingthe legal daily bag limit. However, one of his regulartrips is a five-day charter to Flinders Island, which is

outside Victorian waters. When the charter boat returnsafter a five-day trip a problem arises about whether theparticipants are legally permitted to bring back fivedays worth of catch or whether they are allowed tobring back an amount equivalent to the daily bag limitper client. The department is unable to give myconstituent a categorical answer and the uncertainty isaffecting the viability of the business.

I ask the minister to direct her attention to the matterand expedite an answer for my constituent. Moreover, Isuggest to the minister that there may be a need toestablish a long-term strategy or arrangement forcharter boat operators. It may be that a special licencecategory needs to be created somewhere between acommercial and recreational licence to specificallycater for charter boat proprietors and others toovercome the problem.

Carlton: traffic congestion

Hon. G. D. ROMANES (Melbourne) — I direct amatter to the attention of the Minister for Energy andResources in her capacity as the representative of theMinister for Transport in another place. Communitygroups such as the Carlton Residents Association andthe Parkville Association and many individuals in myelectorate have drawn attention to the increasingcongestion in the Carlton and Parkville areas due to thevolume of traffic from the Eastern Freeway. They areconcerned that the improved access for people in theeast from the proposed extension of the EasternFreeway will attract even more traffic to the inner cityarea.

I understand the Minister for Transport has mentionedthat a feasibility study will examine integrated transportoptions to address traffic problems at the western andcity ends of the Eastern Freeway. I also understand theMelbourne City Council is interested in becominginvolved in such a feasibility study. Community groupsand members of my electorate in Carlton and Parkvilleare anxious that some action be taken on the matter. Itherefore ask the minister when the feasibility studywill begin and whether it will incorporate considerationof a light rail service along the Eastern Freeway toDoncaster.

Mount Stirling Road: safety works

Hon. G. R. CRAIGE (Central Highlands) — I raisea matter for the attention of the Minister for Energy andResources, who represents the Minister forEnvironment and Conservation in another place. Itconcerns some works that recently took place on theMount Stirling Road. As a result of the safety audits

ADJOURNMENT


carried out following the disaster at Thredbo, manysafety issues were identified in alpine regions. Iacknowledge that last summer prior to the ski seasonthe Labor government allocated funding to the resortsto carry out necessary safety works.

I have no problem at all with the risk managementprocess. Most of the resorts, with the exception ofMount Stirling, carried out their works during thesummer months — an acceptable practice. The contractlet by the Mount Stirling Management Board includedworks such as the pruning of dangerous vegetationalong the roadside, the upgrade of drainage, thereinforcement of batters and rehabilitating the surfaceof the deteriorating road.

The issue I raise is the lack of consultation, the timingand, in particular, the disposal of debris and timber. Asalready indicated, the works carried out at other resortswere done during the summer months. I cannot, nor canthe Mount Stirling Alpine Advisory Group, which wasestablished by the Mount Stirling Management Board,work out why the work was carried out in the winter.No discussion took place between the board and localcommunities, advisory groups or the operators workingin the area. Many large trees were felled during theprocess.

I was disgusted at the way the timber and tree stumpswere displaced and disposed of. They were pushed overthe edge of the road, ripping out vegetation as they fellinto the beautiful ferny valleys along the road. It is anabsolute mess. The timber sawlogs — about 600 cubicmetres — could have been retrieved and sold, probablyrecovering about half the cost of the contract. I ask theminister to have a full departmental inquiry into thisenvironmental disaster.

Rail: Ouyen crossing

Hon. B. W. BISHOP (North Western) — I direct tothe Minister for Energy and Resources in her capacityas the representative in this place of the Minister forTransport the poor condition of the railway crossing onthe western side of Ouyen, famous for its vanilla slice.The crossing is on the Mallee Highway, which as themajor road leading to and from South Australia carriesa lot of traffic. It also services Victorian towns such asMurrayville, Underbool and Walpeup, as well as anumber of villages on the way.

I inspected the crossing and noted that it has broken upbadly and is rapidly becoming worse. It is a risk tousers of the Mallee Highway. I request that this issue bedrawn to the immediate attention of the Minister forTransport so that this urgent matter can be addressed.

Braybrook: street lighting

Hon. S. M. NGUYEN (Melbourne West) — I directto the attention of the Minister for Energy andResources issues raised by the residents of Braybrookover recent weeks and months relating to safety in thatsuburb.


The PRESIDENT — Order! It is not assistingMr Nguyen when two of his colleagues are speaking atthe same time as he is raising an adjournment issue. Iask honourable members to desist from interjecting.

Hon. S. M. NGUYEN — As I said, residents andgroups in the suburb of Braybrook have raised issuesrelating to safety. The community, police and theBraybrook Issues Working Group have workedtogether to address some of these concerns. Theresidents have raised the issue of street lights that havegone out and not been replaced. Will the ministeradvise the house of the process for having street lightsrepaired and the standard turnaround time?

Housing: youth homelessness

Hon. W. I. SMITH (Silvan) — I raise for theattention of the Minister for Small Business,representing the Minister for Housing in the otherplace, the issue of homelessness and some of the workdone by the government. It is difficult to get a handleon what is happening, but the government appears to betrying to understand the issue of homelessness.

Recently it released a report entitled Homelessness inVictoria by Dr Chris Chamberlain, the head ofsociology at Monash University. The report wasprepared for the Victorian homelessness strategy andraises issues that need to be addressed. It uses the 1996population census to work out how many homelesspeople there are in Victoria and states in part:

… that two-thirds (64 per cent) of the homeless in suburbanMelbourne were staying with other households on censusnight. This tends to make them invisible. It is possible thatsome may have been homeless for short periods of time,because homeless people often prefer to stay with otherhouseholds when they first lose their accommodation …

It is also more common in suburban areas for people in crisis(especially families) to access caravan parks on a short-termbasis.

I know this occurs in the outer east. The problem iswider than homelessness for families in crisis, and thatis the issue I direct to the minister’s attention.Unfortunately there is a hidden problem in myelectorate, and I know it occurs in other electorates,

ADJOURNMENT


involving homeless schoolchildren. I know from thework I do with some of the secondary colleges in myelectorate that about 15 to 20 students in 1000 aged15 to 16 years are homeless, and I suspect theproportion is the same in secondary schools in otherelectorates.

When one studies the figures one can see a patternemerging of homeless kids, who cannot stay at schoolfor a range of reasons, dropping out of school andgetting lost in the statistics. The organisations withwhom I have discussed this issue, including HanoverHouse, all say the same thing: that a lot of children havenot been counted in the census and are lost to inner cityareas. I know the government has announced fundingfor programs in my area, including Wesley in outereastern Silvan.

I have raised the issue in the hope that the strategy willreview the situation of homeless schoolchildren, notjust families in crisis, and try to offer solutions.

Minister for Environment and Conservation:correspondence

Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern) — I raisewith the Minister for Energy and Resources for referralto her colleague the Minister for Environment andConservation in another place an issue relating to openand accountable government. It is my sad duty toadvise the house for a second time that the Minister forEnvironment and Conservation has failed to uphold theLabor government’s lofty commitments to open andaccountable government.

I have a copy of the draft recommendations of theEnvironment Conservation Council report on boxironbark forest vegetation, a report, not surprisingly,that generated a lot of interest in northern Victoria. Iattended meetings in Bendigo in July at which300 people were present and in Nathalia on 7 Augustwhere more than 200 people were present. The closingdate for submissions was 8 August.

A number of my constituents, particularly those in theBroken–Boosey area, found the recommendations to besomewhat surprising and sought an extension of theclosing date for submissions. On 31 July I wrote to theminister requesting that the closing date be extended bya short period. I would have thought that, bearing inmind that it was dated 31 July and that the closing datewas a week later, upon receipt of the letter in theminister’s office it may have had some urgencyattached to it. More than a month has elapsed and I amstill to receive an acknowledgment, let alone anyresponse of substance to the letter. That is not the way

for governments to operate if they want to profess thatthey are open and accountable. I request the minister toask her colleague to give me a response as soon aspossible.

Gas: Portarlington, Indented Head andSt Leonards supply

Hon. E. C. CARBINES (Geelong) — I refer amatter to the Minister assisting the Minister for Stateand Regional Development representing the Ministerfor State and Regional Development in another place.Can the minister confirm that an application has beenlodged for funding from the Regional InfrastructureDevelopment Fund for the construction of a gaspipeline to the townships of Portarlington, IndentedHead and St Leonards?

Minister for Major Projects and Tourism:correspondence

Hon. G. K. RICH-PHILLIPS (Eumemmerring) —I refer the Minister for Industrial Relations,representing the Premier, to a letter Mr Lucas and Ireceived from Mr Bernard Canning, a constituent fromDandenong. Mr Canning wrote:

On 26 May this year I wrote to my local member of theLegislative Assembly, Mr John Pandazopoulos, regarding theproposed ‘trials’ of drug injecting rooms. Despite a reminderletter on 19 July, when I also wrote to the mayor ofDandenong, Ms Angela Long, I have not received so much asan acknowledgment, let alone an adequate response.

Mr Canning lists a number of points regarding safeinjecting facilities and then goes on to state:

Not having had a reply, it may be that the government is onlynow actively considering these issues.

…

Drug use is a difficult and complex issue. It needs more thanthe simplistic responses we have so far seen. It certainly needsmore than abuse of those who question the wisdom andeffectiveness of this government’s proposals to date.

Will you please take up this matter and see what response youcan obtain, on my behalf, to what I believe are reasonablequestions that so far remain unanswered.

It is well known in Dandenong that the honourablemember for Dandenong, having become a minister,prefers to spend time in his Collins Street office ratherthan in his electorate office. It does not surprise me thatthis letter has gone unanswered. I seek the Premier’sassistance to obtain a response to Mr Canning from theMinister for Major Projects and Tourism and thehonourable member for Dandenong.

ADJOURNMENT


Bendigo: healthy eating service

Hon. R. A. BEST (North Western) — I refer theMinister for Industrial Relations, representing theMinister for Health in another place, to theestablishment in the Bendigo area of a healthy eatingservice. Under the previous government some — —

Government members interjecting.

Hon. R. A. BEST — If you would shut up youwould be able to hear. I am sorry, but the two of youbehind the minister are like parrots.

The previous government provided some $30 000 infunding to review the provision of support services forpeople suffering from eating disorders. Currently,people suffering from eating disorders have to travel tothe metropolitan area because there are limited areas ofexpertise and support available to care for them. Thisafternoon I was talking to a mental health nurse and shereminded me of the urgency of the need for funding toprovide a service that is multidisciplinary and addressesthe concerns and cares of those poor people.

Last year, through the Bendigo Health Care Group, anextensive study was undertaken and a multidisciplinaryapproach and model was developed and established tolook at the provision of care and support for not onlythe sufferers, but also the families of people sufferingfrom eating disorders. The Bendigo Health Care Grouphas made a submission to the government, and I in noway want to make this matter party political. People incountry Victoria are in extreme need of theestablishment of a model that can be duplicated in otherrural areas to support sufferers and their families.

As I said, the program is a multidisciplinary model thatlooks at the provision of services by generalpractitioners, psychiatrists, psychologists and dietitians.It is a much-needed service and I urge the government,particularly the minister, to look positively atsupporting the funding for it, as this would alleviatemuch of the pain and suffering and dislocation that thefamilies have to endure in bringing the unfortunatesufferers to the metropolitan area.

Knox: school crossings

Hon. A. P. OLEXANDER (Silvan) — I seek theassistance of the Minister for Energy and Resources,who represents the Minister for Transport in the otherplace. Last week I received a letter from the City ofKnox about the incidence of high severity casualtyaccidents in the municipality and the need for speedzones at school crossings, particularly on main roads. Ibelieve this may be a significant issue for other

municipalities in my electorate. The council advises meit has identified approximately seven sites that wouldmeet the criteria for the establishment of a school speedzone. Of greatest concern are those schools that operateon main roads where an 80-kilometre-per-hour speedlimit is common.

The council has advised me that a number of incidentsand near misses have been reported to it by schools andparents. Incidents to date predominantly have been caraccidents resulting from drivers stopping abruptly.Fortunately, to date there have been no reports ofpedestrians being injured. However, there have beenreports of school crossing supervisors tragically killedor injured in the general region in the period prior to thepast five years.

The City of Knox believes the safety of schoolcrossings is of the highest priority, and the growth oftraffic in the region renders the introduction of reducedspeed zones one of its main priorities. I wholeheartedlyshare the council’s concerns.

The problem the council has is that each identifiedschool crossing site will cost approximately $20 000 toupgrade, and that is $140 000 of ratepayers’ funds thathas not been budgeted for. That is a significant sum forthe council to provide, but it would go a long waytowards protecting school kids crossing busy roads inthe electorate. Because most of the crossings are onmain roads, with most traffic being through traffic andnot local traffic, the council has proposed to theminister’s department a dollar-for-dollar shared fundingarrangement.

As the issue is critical to the safety of school students inmy electorate I ask the minister whether he will ensurehis department reviews the council’s proposals as amatter of urgency and agree to the funding arrangementproposed for school zones in the interests of savinglives of young school children in the outer east ofMelbourne.

Goulburn Valley HIV/AIDS resources group

Hon. E. J. POWELL (North Eastern) — I refer amatter to the Minister for Industrial Relations,representing the Minister for Health in another place. Iwas first contacted by the secretary–treasurer of theGoulburn Valley HIV/AIDS resources group in Julybecause she was concerned the organisation had notreceived its yearly funding of $3000 from the Victoriangovernment. It should have received the funding inFebruary and was told that the cheque was sitting onthe minister’s desk.

ADJOURNMENT


The Goulburn Valley volunteers freely give manyhours of their time to help people in the communitywho desperately need their support with counselling,advice, referral and information. The amount fundedhas been multiplied many times over because of thebenefits to the wider community. Support has beengiven to people who are HIV affected or infected andthe group is a point of referral to professionals and layworkers. Country Victorians especially can be isolatedin their communities, both by fear of the disease and bythe ignorance of the public.

When the organisation first contacted me in July it had$6 left in its funds, but it was not too worried because itwas told the cheque would be there shortly. The groupcontacted me again this month because it has nowreceived a telephone bill it cannot pay. The phone bill isfor the crisis line that people call when they aredesperately seeking support, help and information.

I ask the Minister for Health to advise why there is adelay in processing a cheque for this organisation andwhen it will receive the funding, as the support group isnow itself in crisis and desperately needs help becausethe crisis telephone line may be disconnected.

EPA: test results

Hon. C. A. FURLETTI (Templestowe) — I refer amatter to the Minister for Energy and Resources,representing the Minister for Environment andConservation in the other place. It is a problem that hasbeen experienced by a constituent of mine who forabout five years has been engaged in a dispute with aneighbour. The neighbouring business is a car wash thatwashes cars and car engines and uses spray chemicalswhich find their way over the dividing fence andthrough seepage into my constituent’s property andgarden.

The Banyule council has also been seeking to resolvethe problem, and arranged for the Yarra region of theEnvironment Protection Authority (EPA) to takesamples of soil and vegetation from my constituent’sgarden for analysis on 8 December, 1999. I was pleasedthe council had taken that initiative because I believedthe analysis would go a long way towards putting torest my constituent’s genuine concerns. The vegetationsamples were apparently returned fairly quickly, but asthe soil samples have not been forthcoming myconstituent raised the problem with me.

On 2 May I began writing to the EPA seeking detailsabout the results of the soil samples and have writtenmonthly since then. I have made telephone callsintermittently following up my written correspondence,

and my office has been ringing the EPA daily since lastMonday week. Not only have I not received a responseto my letters, but the EPA has not even shown me thecourtesy of acknowledging them. The staff at the EPAwhose names I am in possession of have failed to returnany of the five messages my office staff have left in thepast 10 days.

I ask the minister to pass on to her colleague in theother place my request to her to direct the regionaloffice of the Environment Protection Authority, which Iunderstand comes within the minister’s portfolio, toproduce the results of the analysis and, hopefully,resolve this somewhat unfortunate neighbourhooddispute.

Housing: St Kilda hotel closure

Hon. ANDREA COOTE (Monash) — I ask theMinister for Small Business to refer the Minister forHousing in another place to the closure of theHollywood Private Hotel in Beaconsfield Parade,St Kilda. Last week I met with members of the PortPhillip and Stonnington Information Network, whomeet monthly to discuss issues and to share informationrelating to public housing in the cities of Port Phillipand Stonnington. It is an excellent network, comprisingpublic housing groups such as Hanover HousingServices, Argyle Street Housing Service, the Office ofHousing, the South Port Community Housing Group,the Prahran–Malvern Community Housing group andthe St Kilda residents group.

For some time there has been a tendency towardsgentrification in the City of Port Phillip. Thegentrification of the City of Port Phillip, and St Kilda inparticular, is causing a lot of pressure on publichousing. I commend the former Minister for Housing,Ann Henderson, on the excellent integrated private andpublic housing development behind Fitzroy Streetcalled the Regal development.

The gentrification of St Kilda is causing concern forhousing lobby groups that are trying to place singlepeople in particular into public housing in the area. TheHollywood Private Hotel has recently been bought by adeveloper, and 65 single men need to find new homesin the area and close to the infrastructure with whichthey are familiar. The Port Phillip and StonningtonInformation Network is already stretched to the limitwith its daily activities, without the additional influx ofhomeless people.

I ask the Minister for Housing what funds and tangibleassistance she has given to ensure that the residents of

ADJOURNMENT


the Hollywood Private Hotel are relocated as soon aspossible to permanent accommodation in the same area.

Dalyston–Glen Forbes Road: upgrade

Hon. R. H. BOWDEN (South Eastern) — I raise amatter with the Minister for Energy and Resources, inher capacity as the representative in this house of theMinister assisting the Minister for Transport regardingRoads. During the past few days I have received fromconstituents 31 signed letters, each with a differentaddress, about the dangerous condition of theDalyston–Glen Forbes Road in the electorate ofGippsland West.

According to the 31 letters, a 5.6 kilometre section ofthe 20 kilometre Dalyston–Glen Forbes Road isunsealed, winding and very dangerous. I am assured bymy constituents that there are on average more than100 vehicle movements a day on the road, includingmilk tankers, school buses, hay trucks and heavyvehicles. A death on that section of the road has alsobeen recorded. My constituents are extremelyconcerned that on the occasions when the local councilprovides upgrading and repairs to the road, within twoweeks on average the road again becomes dangerous.

I ask that the matter be thoroughly investigated, as itappears the council has written to several of myconstituents saying that the council is not able toprovide the due diligence of care to ensure the requiredperformance standards of that section of road. I ask theminister to urgently check out the exact condition andcapacity of the road and ensure that it meets anacceptable performance standard.

Local government: national competition policy

Hon. R. M. HALLAM (Western) — I refer theMinister for Energy and Resources, as therepresentative in this house of the Minister for LocalGovernment, to the national competition policydividends either received or anticipated by Victoria thatare directly attributable to the Kennett government’sreform of local government.

I was pleased to note that Minister Cameron hasconfirmed that the government expects a dividend of$9.8 million this year and a total of $45 million over thefive years to the year 2001–02. However, I am notimpressed to learn that Victoria is currently the onlystate that shares the national competition policypayments with local government. I ask Minister Broadto seek from her colleague the Minister for LocalGovernment a commitment on behalf of the Bracksgovernment that both the total received and anticipated

dividends from the local government reform will befaithfully passed on to councils over the period it isreceived.

Patterson–Tucker road intersection: trafficsignals

Hon. J. W. G. ROSS (Higinbotham) — I refer theMinister for Energy and Resources, as therepresentative in this house of the Minister forTransport, to a petition submitted to the Glen Eira CityCouncil by some 800 residents in my electorateconcerning the dangers to pedestrians at the intersectionof Patterson and Tucker roads in East Bentleigh.

The council has investigated traffic flows and pastincidents at that intersection and submitted anapplication to Vicroads to provide automatic andpedestrian-activated intersection traffic signals. Theresponse to the council from Vicroads has beendisappointing and certainly not in accordance with thestrength of feeling of residents in the local area. I askthe minister to investigate the past incidents at thatintersection which are of great concern to myconstituents and to consider making funds available toundertake the work sought by the Glen Eira CityCouncil before a tragedy occurs.

Taxis: driver standards

Hon. ANDREW BRIDESON (Waverley) — Irefer the Minister for Energy and Resources, as therepresentative in this house of the Minister forTransport, to an issue concerning incompetenttaxidrivers. All honourable members know that taxisare an important and integral part of Melbourne’spublic transport system. As such, we all haveexpectations that those drivers will be well trained,qualified and competent in what they do. The formerPremier, who did a lot for the industry, taggedtaxidrivers as being ambassadors for the state and saidthat they could promote tourism and associatedindustries and activities.

Members of the public have a fair expectation thatwhen they hail a taxi, the driver will have some idea ofwhere they want to go. I was therefore somewhatembarrassed last Wednesday when the CommonwealthParliamentary Association executive had a veryenjoyable dinner with guests from the BritishParliament, and I inquired during conversation whythey had arrived late for the dinner.

I asked whether their lateness was caused byMelbourne’s rainfall. However, they were late foranother reason: they hailed a taxi but the driver did not

ADJOURNMENT


know how to get to Parliament House from the HotelStamford, which is less than a kilometre away.

That incident reminded me that in the past 12 months Ihailed a taxi to go from Parliament House to the grandprix at Albert Park, but had to instruct the driver how toget there. On another occasion I hired a taxi to travel toFlemington racecourse for the Melbourne Cup, but,again, the driver did not know how to get there.

Will the Minister for Transport investigate howincompetent taxidrivers are employed and whether theyhave ongoing and in-service education? Victoria’staxidrivers should be trained to the standards of Londoncabbies.


Hon. B. C. BOARDMAN (Chelsea) — The matterI direct to the attention of the Minister for Sport andRecreation concerns his bizarre promotion duringtoday’s question time of international sporting teamsusing Melbourne’s facilities in the lead-up to theOlympic Games. It is wonderful that Victoria shouldhave such an incredible number of sporting teams andinternational athletes availing themselves of Victoria’sfine facilities in the lead-up to the Olympics, but it is aslur on the minister that he should go on about thepromotion of international athletes to the detriment ofAustralian athletes.

If the minister were capable and knowledgeable abouthis portfolio responsibilities he would be aware that theAustralian Telstra swimming team has been using theMelbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre in the lead-up tothe games. Training there on Thursdays are such fineAustralians as Matt Dunn, Michael Klim and RebeccaBrown. The public is turning up in droves to supportthe athletes, yet the minister is nowhere to be seen. Heis not interested. He would rather succumb to thepopulist publicity associated with supporting big-ticketathletes in the hope that he may get some publicity.

I ask the minister to admit that he has shirked hisresponsibilities as Victoria’s sports minister byneglecting Victorian athletes at the expense of gainingpotential publicity through acting as a quasi advocatefor overseas athletes.

School Focus Youth Service

Hon. M. T. LUCKINS (Waverley) — The matter Idirect to the attention of the Minister for Youth Affairsmay seem pedestrian after the last two matters. TheSchool Focus Youth Service was funded by theprevious government to offer an integrated program toVictorian schools and to develop links to existing

programs for young people. The City of Monash wasone of the successful tenderers for the program and hasreceived $120 000 a year. The service worked with63 schools in the City of Monash, including allgovernment, Catholic and independent schools.

The director of youth services at the City of Monash,Malcolm Ford, said the School Focus Youth Servicehas been successful locally, with positive outcomes forstudents referred to the services. It has provided schoolswith unprecedented contact on their initiatives. Theprogram was initially funded for three years and thecontract is set to expire in September 2001.

Given that that is a year away, the City of Monash andother providers are keen to know the government’splans for the continuation of the School Focus YouthService. They want to know whether ongoing fundswill be provided so that the momentum gained to datewill not be lost.


Hon. P. A. KATSAMBANIS (Monash) — Thematter I direct to the attention of the Minister for Sportand Recreation follows the issue raised byMr Boardman, who said that during question timetoday the minister was glowing and enthusiastic in hispromotion of overseas athletes training in Melbourne inthe lead-up to the Olympic Games.

I point out to the minister that probably Australia’smost internationally renowned athletes — that is,Australia’s Olympic soccer team, commonly known asthe Olyroos — are based in Melbourne not only in thelead-up to the Olympics but tonight they are to play aninternational soccer match at Olympic Park. OnThursday night they will be playing anotherinternational soccer match at the Bob Jane stadium inmy electorate. For the duration of the Olympics theteam will be based in Melbourne at the Hilton Hotel.

Like Mr Boardman I am also concerned at theminister’s apparent lack of interest in Australiansporting teams in his haste to embrace internationalathletes. I call on the minister to correct the omission byputting on the record his support along with that ofLiberal Party members and, no doubt, National Partymembers for the Australian Olympic athletes, includingthe Olyroos. We wish them well in their quest to wingold for Australia.

Waverley Park

Hon. N. B. LUCAS (Eumemmerring) — I direct amatter to the attention of the Minister for Sport andRecreation. It revolves around the Herald Sun headline

ADJOURNMENT


of 27 August ‘Waverley pledge an election hoax’. Ihave followed with great interest the heritage listing ofWaverley Park. I have noticed headlines in a number ofnewspapers about the heritage status of Waverley Park.One headline states ‘Heritage status for Waverley ajoke’. A headline in the 1 September edition of the Agestates ‘Heritage call threatens clubs: AFL’. A headlineof 16 August states ‘Heritage bid a threat to clubs:AFL’ and on 1 September a further headline states‘Heritage hurts AFL’.

I have done some research and got to the bottom of theheritage listing. The Dandenong Examiner states thatthe Minister for Gaming in the other place, JohnPandazopoulos, last year suggested that if somebodynominated Waverley Park for heritage listing topreserve the stadium, the schemes of the AustralianFootball League (AFL) would fall asunder.

I have found out why the heritage listing has succeeded.The Minister for Gaming, the honourable member forDandenong in the other place, suggested that theheritage listing should proceed. It seems the listing is aresult of the minister’s suggestion to the City of GreaterDandenong which, as the Honourable GordonRich-Phillips said the other night, spent more than$160 000 prosecuting the case for a heritage listing; yet,Waverley Park is in the City of Monash.

On 1 September it was reported that Wayne Jackson,the chief executive of the AFL, said that the heritagelisting threatened the future of cash-strapped local clubsand the development of the game. It appears that thefootball clubs of St Kilda, Hawthorn, North Melbourneand Footscray could go under as a result of theminister’s suggestion to the City of Greater Dandenong.

Given that it was the suggestion of the minister that theCity of Greater Dandenong seek heritage listing forWaverley Park and having regard to the statement ofthe chief executive of the AFL of 1 September that thelisting threatened the future of cash-strapped clubs inthe development of the game, will the minister advisethe house what financial guarantees the governmentwill provide for the AFL clubs of St Kilda, Hawthorn,North Melbourne and Footscray should they havefinancial difficulties? In other words, what action willthe government take — —

The PRESIDENT — Order! The honourablemember clearly went over his time. Next time he willbe on a 2-minute limit!

Industrial relations: IT industry

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS (East Yarra) — My questionto the Minister for Industrial Relations concerns the

telecommunications and information technology sectorof the Victorian economy. The Australian FinancialReview of 18 August carried an article at page 19 thatdealt with some industrial relations aspects of theindustry at the moment. It is an important growthindustry that is growing much faster than the nationaleconomy and the Victorian economy overall. TheCommunity and Public Sector Union (CPSU) hasserved a significant log of claims ontelecommunications groups and Internet serviceproviders and is trying to establish an industry-wideaward. The article states that the log of claims covers:

… virtually the entire sector outside market giants TelstraCorp and Cable & Wireless Optus, which are regulated bycompany-specific federal industrial awards.

The article goes on to list other carriers and serviceproviders that are affected by the log of claims —AAPT, Davnet, One.Tel, Vodafone, HutchisonTelecommunications, Ozemail, Eisa, MacquarieCorporate Telecommunications, Primus and RSLCommunications. There is considerable concern thatthis industry, which is growing very fast, will besignificantly affected by this log of claims. The unionseeks to impose a regulated workplace on a number ofcarriers in a way that will impact on the growth of thesector and the employment opportunities that it offersVictoria.

I contrast that with the fact that the Kennett governmenthad a very strong policy in this area to grow the sectorand to place Victoria in a leadership position in theworld of multimedia and associated industries. It hadthe first Minister for Multimedia in Alan Stockdale. Inthat context there is a belief that this claim can seriouslydamage the industry. The log of claims is believed toaffect more than 100 000 workers in the sector acrossAustralia.

I ask the Minister for Industrial Relations to assure thehouse that she does not support the industry-wideaward push in the information technology industry. Canthe minister assure the house that she does not supportany heavy-handed tactics by the CPSU that maydisadvantage the IT sector and employment bytelecommunications and Internet service providers inVictoria?

Workcover: premiums

Hon. K. M. SMITH (South Eastern) — I have aquestion to the Minister assisting the Minister forWorkcover. During the last sittings of Parliament theminister came into this house as the lead speaker on abill seeking the opposition’s support to increaseWorkcover premiums to cover the provision of

ADJOURNMENT


common-law rights. That is the way it was sold. Shetold us that the premiums would rise approximately15 per cent, or 15 per cent on average. There was nomention of the removal of caps, of adjustments ofindustry or anything like that. I think the Ministerassisting the Minister for Workcover misled the housewith what she said during that debate. Hansard willrecord that the minister misled the house.

My office has been inundated with complaints frompeople about the premiums they have been asked topay. I will mention the name of one company on thebasis that if it is in any way victimised by the ThoughtPolice out at Workcover I will be in here namingWorkcover officers and the company for whatWorkcover has done to it.

In 1998–99 the premium the company was asked to paywas $34 577.10. For the year 1999–2000 it was up to$39 762.08, and for this current year, 2000–01, thepremium has just increased to $71 959.01. That is far inexcess of the 15 per cent average that the ministermisled members into accepting.

Hon. R. F. Smith interjected.

Hon. K. M. SMITH — Why don’t you shut up! Iwant to know why the Minister assisting the Ministerfor Workcover allowed this to happen, why she misledthe house and what she is going to do for this smallbusiness, which she and her government may besending broke.

Liquor: licences

Hon. BILL FORWOOD (Templestowe) — I raisean issue with the Minister for Small Businessconcerning the review of the 8 per cent limit on liquorlicence holdings. At the outset let me point out that onpage 5 the report released yesterday by the ministernotes that the National Competition Council stated in itssubmission that it was satisfied that the current reviewwas ‘sufficiently independent’. The issue is that theOffice of Regulation Reform undertook an independentreview. We know, because it is on the record, that theinitial review document was finished in June as wasrequired under the terms of reference, which wereextended from May. I draw a contrast between what theoriginal report said and what ended up in the finalreport. For example, the original report states:

Given the above conclusions, the review considers that itwould be inappropriate to immediately abolish the 8 per centlimit.

The final report states:

Given the above conclusions, it would be in the public interestto retain the 8 per cent limit …

Of course, that led to a change in the recommendation.The original recommendation said:

While it would be inappropriate to immediately abolish the8 per cent limit …

In the final report issued yesterday the recommendationhad been changed to:

The 8 per cent rule should not be removed …

Is it not true that the review released yesterday is notindependent, as required by the National CompetitionCouncil, and that in fact the alterations made to it tohide its true recommendations were made on theminister’s instructions?


Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra) — I raise amatter with the Minister for Industrial Relations relatingto the work of the industrial relations task force whichshe spoke about so proudly in question time. Theindustrial relations task force has already cost thetaxpayers around $2 million, even though it has beenestablished for only about three months. I am keen toknow whether the government is planning to continuewith the task force after this date. If not, how will thegovernment honour its election promise that it will havesome form of multipartisan body to discuss industrialrelations issues and provide some kind of forum foremployers and unions? Will it be the industrial relationstask force? If not, which body will the governmentcreate, or will it not create such a body?

Responses

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for IndustrialRelations) — A number of matters were raised withme. The Honourable Gordon Rich-Phillips raised amatter for the Premier. I will pass that on and thePremier will respond in the usual manner.

The Honourable Ron Best raised a matter for referral tothe Minister for Health with respect to multidisciplinaryservices in the Bendigo area and an application forfunding, I think it was for $30 000. I will raise that withthe minister.

Hon. R. A. Best — The study cost $30 000, whichwas provided by the previous government.

Hon. M. M. GOULD — The matter was in respectto funding for multidisciplinary services in the Bendigoarea, specifically relating to eating disorders. I will raise

ADJOURNMENT


that with the Minister for Health and ask him torespond in the normal manner.

The Honourable Jeanette Powell raised a matter for theMinister for Health with respect to funding of $3000 forHIV/AIDS treatment programs. I will raise that with theminister and ask him to respond in the usual manner.

The Honourable David Davis raised a log of claims thathas been served by the Community and Public SectorUnion on telecommunications and informationtechnology industries. If the honourable member hadany understanding of what industrial relations wasabout he would realise the under the WorkplaceRelations Act a union serves a log of claims oncompanies. It has to be an ambit claim so they can havewhat is called a paper dispute — —

Hon. D. McL. Davis — It doesn’t have to be anambit claim.

Hon. M. M. GOULD — If they want a disputefound to resolve an issue.


Hon. M. M. GOULD — The process for creating afederal award under the Workplace Relations Act isthat the union serves a log of claims on companies. Ifany companies wish to take issue with that I would bemore than happy for them to get in touch with mydepartment, which would be prepared to advise andassist them in any way to sort out any issues they mayhave with the matters before the commission.

Hon. D. McL. Davis — On a point of order,Mr President, I asked the minister to assure the housethat she did not support the industry-wide award andthe push by the Community and Public Sector Unioninto the information technology industry. That is notwhat she has done. She said she has no understandingof the issue. However, I seek that assurance from her.

The PRESIDENT — Order! There is no point oforder. I read the guidelines to the house the other night.They specifically state that the house accepts theanswer as given. I can read the words again if thehonourable member wishes.

Hon. M. M. GOULD — The Honourable KenSmith referred to Workcover premiums, a subject thatwas debated extensively last week. He also passed onthe name of a particular company and details of aninitial premium notice. I will not name the company. Asindicated, if any companies wish to discuss theirpremiums with the authority an appointment will be

made and I will take it up with the authority and ask itto organise a meeting to discuss their concerns.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to the industrialrelations task force. The question covered two issuesand I will address both. One concerned the $2 million.As I stated to the house, the government allocated asum not exceeding $2 million. The task force has notexpended the full amount of that money.

An Opposition Member — How much?

Hon. M. M. GOULD — I cannot recall. I advisedthe Public Accounts and Estimates Committee howmuch money had been spent to date. I think I can say itis less than $250 000, but I will stand corrected. I amhappy to advise the house tomorrow exactly how muchhas been spent on the continuation of the task force. Itwas resolved in the formal report given to me today.

An honourable member interjected.

Hon. M. M. GOULD — As I said, the governmentwill be considering the recommendations of the taskforce. After an economic impact statement has beenprepared it will respond in the not-too-distant future.

Hon. C. C. BROAD (Minister for Energy andResources) — The first question I received was fromthe Honourable Philip Davis, who referred to a matterconcerning Mr Tom Dickson, which he raised with mein this place on 8 December, and to my response at thattime. The honourable member sought to revive thematter by referring to documents he received underfreedom of information. Unfortunately for him, some ofthe emails that some officers appear to have exchangedbetween themselves within the department are less thanwell informed.

I can assure the honourable member that the answer Igave on 8 December is accurate, and the extent of myso-called intervention in the matter consisted ofrepresentations made to me by the Victorian Chamberof Mines and others about a matter that predated mytaking on the responsibilities of the portfolio. I did theentirely appropriate thing, which was to raise the matterwith the then secretary of the department, Mr Taylor,who is the person who appoints and determines thecontracts, not the minister. The then secretary of thedepartment informed me of the actions he had taken inrelation to that person’s employment, and I accepted hisexplanation. That was the extent of my inquiries on thematter.

An Honourable Member — A cover-up!

Hon. C. C. BROAD — You wish!

ADJOURNMENT


The second matter was raised by the Honourable PeterHall in response to a constituent, Mr Michael Doran. Itconcerned bag limits for people participating in fishingcharter trips. Mr Doran sought clarification of the limitsthat apply to people who participate in charters. Iundertake to discuss the matter with the department andto seek a resolution.

The Honourable Glenyys Romanes raised a matter withthe Minister for Transport concerning traffic congestionat the western end of the Eastern Freeway. Sherequested that the minister advise her of a feasibilitystudy on the matter. I will refer her question to theminister.

An Honourable Member — Don’t forget the lightrail out to Doncaster!

Hon. C. C. BROAD — That is correct.

The Honourable Geoff Craige requested the Ministerfor Environment and Conservation to investigate thesafety works at Mount Stirling and issues such asconsultation, timing and disposal of timber followingthose works. I will refer the matter to the minister forher to pursue.

The Honourable Barry Bishop raised a matter for theMinister for Transport concerning a railway crossing atOuyen. He requested that the minister urgently addresssafety matters to do with that crossing. I will refer thatto the minister.

The Honourable Sang Nguyen raised with me a matterconcerning safe public lighting in the Braybrook area. Ican advise the honourable member that most publiclighting services are currently owned, maintained andoperated by the franchised electricity distributionbusinesses and local councils pay the relevantdistribution company for the provision of those servicesin each council area. In some instances Vicroads paysthe distribution businesses for lighting servicesassociated with major roads. Public lighting services inBraybrook — west of Footscray — are provided byAGL in the east and Powercor in the west.

Those electricity distribution businesses operate inaccordance with audited asset maintenance programs,and the electricity supply and sale code of the Office ofthe Regulator-General provides that if a customerreports a broken street light next to the customer’shouse or business and the distribution business does notfix the light within two working days the business mustcredit the customer’s account with $10. That is one offive guaranteed service levels introduced by the SEC in1993 and continued under the current regulatoryframework. Legislation the government enacted in the

autumn sittings gave the Office of theRegulator-General continuing powers to regulate publiclighting services from 2001.

The Honourable Bill Baxter referred to theEnvironment Conservation Council’s draftbox-ironbark report. All honourable members know thehigh regard Mr Baxter has for the ECC! He asked theMinister for Environment and Conservation to have theEnvironment Conservation Council, an independentbody, provide an extension of time for submissions, andrequested that the minister respond to his request. Ishall pass on the matter to the minister.

The Honourable Elaine Carbines asked the Minister forState and Regional Development to advise her whethera submission has been received by the RegionalInfrastructure Development Fund concerning theextension of gas to the towns of Portarlington, IndentedHead and Clifton Springs. I shall pass on her request tothe Minister for State and Regional Development.

The Honourable Andrew Olexander raised for theattention of the Minister for Transport correspondencefrom the City of Knox about safety at school crossings.He asked the minister to review the council’s proposalfor joint funding of works required to ensure safety atschool crossings. I shall refer the matter to the Ministerfor Transport.

The Honourable Carlo Furletti raised for the Ministerfor Environment and Conservation a constituent’sproblem with a carwash business next door and troubleobtaining test results from the Environment ProtectionAuthority. He requested that the minister require theEPA to provide those test results. I shall refer the matterto the Minister for Environment and Conservation.

The Honourable Ron Bowden on behalf of aconstituent raised for the Minister for Transport thestate of Dalyston–Glen Forbes Road in SouthGippsland and asked that the minister urgentlyinvestigate works required to ensure that the road meetsan acceptable standard. I shall refer the matter to theMinister for Transport.

The Honourable Roger Hallam raised for the attentionof the Minister for Local Government a matterconcerning national competition dividend paymentsand sought an assurance from the minister that the totaldividend from those payments will be passed on tolocal councils. I shall refer the matter to the Minister forLocal Government.

The Honourable John Ross also referred a matterconcerning an intersection to the Minister for Transport.It was raised by the Glen Eira City Council. Dr Ross

ADJOURNMENT


asked that the minister investigate incidents at thatintersection and act to prevent a tragedy. I shall referthe matter to the Minister for Transport.

The Honourable Andrew Brideson raised a matter forthe attention of the Minister for Transport concerningcompetent taxidrivers, a matter to which manymembers of this house can relate. He asked the ministerto investigate the training of Melbourne taxidrivers tothe standard of London taxidrivers. I shall refer hisrequest to the Minister for Transport.

I wish to correct an answer I gave earlier to theHonourable Elaine Carbines. I referred to Portarlington,Indented Head and Clifton Springs. I should havereferred to St Leonards rather than Clifton Springs.

Hon. M. R. THOMSON (Minister for SmallBusiness) — The Honourable Wendy Smith raised thematter of the homelessness strategy that is beingprepared and asked for it to deal with the question ofhomeless schoolchildren in suburban areas rather thanbeing a strategy only for homeless families. I shall passthat on to the Minister for Housing for a reply.

The Honourable Andrea Coote raised for the attentionof the Minister for Housing the closure of theHollywood Private Hotel and her meeting withmembers of the Port Phillip and StonningtonInformation Network. She said that the hotel had beenpurchased by a developer and referred to the 65 or sosingle men who resided there. She asked what fundsand tangible assistance could be provided to enable themen to stay in the area. I shall pass on the matter to theMinister for Housing.

The Honourable Bill Forwood raised the matter of the8 per cent limit for packaged liquor licence holders. Iknow he is disappointed in the final report, but we arepleased with it. We look forward to the consultativeproject. Next time he should wait for the final reportbefore he makes an announcement.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Sport andRecreation) — The Honourable Cameron Boardmanasked about the Australian Olympic teams training inVictoria. Although today during question time Irecognised exotic sports from exotic countries, I alsoknow that the Australian teams recognise thatMelbourne is the sporting capital of the nation, and it isclear that some of the sportspeople from around theworld appreciate that Victoria is the place to be.

I hope the reason the honourable member gave theAustralian Telstra Dolphins a plug is that hewholeheartedly supports the Australian swimmingteam, not because he is engaging in any corporate

hospitality related to Telstra. It is great to see so manyteams involved in pre-Olympic training in Victoria. Ireinforce the great work that has been done by Sportand Recreation Victoria for many years to attract theseteams to Melbourne.

The Honourable Maree Luckins asked about the SchoolFocused Youth Service, which targets young peoplebetween the ages of 10 and 18 years who are displayingbehaviours that require intervention and who needsupport. The program is under the jurisdiction of theMinister for Community Services in the other place. Ihave been informed that the program includes anongoing evaluation which is currently being conductedand will conclude in early 2001, when decisions will bemade about how the program will proceed beyondOctober 2001.

The Honourable Peter Katsambanis also raised amatter — I was pleased he was sitting next to theHonourable Cameron Boardman when watching the6 o’clock news tonight! — about the teams that will betraining in Melbourne prior to the Olympic Games. Allhonourable members will be looking forward to theopening soccer game between the Olyroos and Italy,which is to be played three days before the OlympicGames begin in Sydney. I wish those teams all the bestin their pursuit of excellence in representing theircountries.

The Honourable Neil Lucas asked about WaverleyPark. The Australian Football League, like any otherindividual or organisation in this state, must engage in aplanning process, and that has been the case in thisinstance. Today I spoke with the AFL to discuss theongoing viability of the competition and clubs, and thegovernment will continue to advocate for games to beplayed at Waverley. The government will also continueto discuss a range of issues with regard to the viabilityof the competition.

I advise all honourable members that one of theattendants of the house, Russel Bowman, is celebratinghis birthday today. Honourable members might like topass on their best wishes as they leave the chambertonight.

Motion agreed to.

House adjourned 10.10 p.m.

INFORMATION PRIVACY BILL

Wednesday, 6 September 2000 COUNCIL 223

Wednesday, 6 September 2000

The PRESIDENT (Hon. B. A. Chamberlain) took thechair at 10.04 a.m. and read the prayer.

INFORMATION PRIVACY BILL



Read first time on motion of Hon. C. C. BROAD(Minister for Energy and Resources).

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT(RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS) BILL



Read first time on motion of Hon. J. M. MADDEN(Minister assisting the Minister for Planning).

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTCOMMITTEE

Membership

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for IndustrialRelations) — By leave, I move:

That the Hon. W. I. Smith be discharged from attendance onthe Economic Development Committee and that theHon. Andrea Coote be appointed in her stead.

Motion agreed to.

LAW REFORM COMMITTEE

Membership


That the Hon. D. McL. Davis be discharged from attendanceon the Law Reform Committee.

Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATESCOMMITTEE

Membership


That the Hon. Bill Forwood be discharged from attendance onthe Public Accounts and Estimates Committee and that theHon. D. McL. Davis be appointed in his stead.

Hon. BILL FORWOOD (Templestowe) — Todaymarks the end of my time with the Public Accounts andEstimates Committee, which I am proud to haveserved. I am a great supporter of the parliamentarycommittee system and I believe their work plays animportant part in the way Parliament and societyoperates. As chairman, and recently as deputychairman, I was privileged to work on a committee thatwas committed to trying to achieve unanimous reports,and I believe the committee did that very well. Much ofthe work of the committee was greatly assisted by theattitude of the former Minister for Finance, theHonourable Roger Hallam. I am proud of the workdone and I am sure that the work undertaken in the pastfour or five years will stand the test of time, particularlythe work on annual reporting, performancemeasurement and commercial in confidence.

I thank Michele Cornwell, who was and still is theexecutive officer of the Public Accounts and EstimatesCommittee. Her contribution to the parliamentaryprocess is second to none, and I place on record hercontribution to the work done during my time aschairman.

Motion agreed to.

WORKCOVER: PREMIUMS

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra) — I move:

That pursuant to the Parliamentary Committee Act 1968, theEconomic Development Committee be required to inquireinto, consider and report on Workcover premiums for2000–01, including:

(a) the reasons for the level of those premiums;

(b) the manner in which those premiums were determined,both in aggregate and for individual industryclassifications and employers;

(c) the impact which those premiums have had and can beexpected to have on economic activity and employmentin aggregate and in metropolitan, regional and ruralVictoria;

WORKCOVER: PREMIUMS

224 COUNCIL Wednesday, 6 September 2000

(d) the impact which those premiums have had and can beexpected to have on the state budget and on theprovision of services by government departments andagencies, by local government and by non-profit andcommunity organisations;

(e) whether the government can or should take action toreduce or compensate for any such adverse impacts; and

(f) whether changes should be made to the manner in whichWorkcover premiums are determined in future;

and to provide an interim report to Parliament by30 November 2000 and a final report to Parliament by31 March 2001.

The motion seeks to refer to the all-party EconomicDevelopment Committee of the Parliament a briefinquiry into the enormous public controversy thatcurrently surrounds the increase in Workcoverpremiums.

Rarely does the business community get diverted fromthe task of running businesses and making ends meet,but it does when it is confronted with an unexpectedand unjustified cost that impacts on the viability ofmany businesses. That is what is happening today as aresult of the increase in the cost of Workcoverpremiums for ordinary businessmen andbusinesswomen throughout the state.

The Liberal Party is extremely concerned about thegovernment’s mismanagement of the Workcoversystem and the consequent impact this is having uponbusinesses, both large and small, in metropolitan andrural areas.

There has been an enormous degree of publicdiscussion and disquiet about the ham-fisted way thisissue has been handled by the Labor government. Thereis a legitimate call for the government to review itsactions. The Liberal Party believes the best way ofachieving this is to establish an inquiry by an all-partyparliamentary committee under the ParliamentaryCommittees Act. The most appropriate body to conductthe inquiry is the Economic Development Committee. Ihave moved this motion so that the committee can getdown to work.

The Economic Development Committee will be askedto inquire into the reasons for the level of Workcoverpremiums for 2000–01; the manner in which thosepremiums were determined; the impact those premiumshave in a macro and individual economic sense inmetropolitan, regional and rural Victoria; the impact thepremiums will have on the state budget and relatedmatters; and whether the government can take action toameliorate the negative impact its decision has had.

There could be no more significant business issue todaythat could be inquired into by a parliamentarycommittee. The beauty of the parliamentary committeesystem is that it offers individuals a chance to giveevidence, to state their case, to be heard and to get aresponse from Parliament. The Economic DevelopmentCommittee is well suited to this task and has thecapacity to undertake the work. Most significantly, ifthere is no inquiry by Parliament there would be aninadequate opportunity for large or small businesses tomake their views known and to demand changes. Ifnothing else, many businesses want to explain the harmthe increased premiums have caused to their viability,how they have impacted upon their capacity to employpeople and in some unfortunate cases how they haveimpacted upon their ability to continue in business,which is why the opposition wishes the EconomicDevelopment Committee to carry out the inquiry.

The Parliamentary Committees Act allows either houseof Parliament to refer a matter to a parliamentarycommittee, and if either house of Parliament does sothose references have priority over the references thatare either given to the committee by the executivethrough the Governor in Council or are self-generatedby the committee. That is a longstanding rule that hashad bipartisan support.

The rule was reinforced only recently when the newcommittees were created. The Economic DevelopmentCommittee became the first upper house committeeappointed under the Parliamentary Committees Act, ofwhich we are proud, and we now seek to utilise it. TheLiberal Party wants the reference to go to thecommittee, and it hopes the government will support itsgoing to the committee. It understands there can be nofair case against the reference being forwarded to thecommittee, but in case it is suggested that thecommittee does not have the time or resources to dealwith this matter I will briefly outline the facts.

The committee, as is the longstanding tradition, candetermine its own priorities under the ParliamentaryCommittees Act. It has to give priority to referencesfrom a house of Parliament and then determine its ownpriorities with the budget given to it. There is no doubtthe committee has the capacity to do that. It has thecapacity to alter inquiries to achieve whatever outcomesare expected of it.

I make it clear that if the committee finds it difficultafter embarking on the inquiry to cope with thedemands on it within the established time frames theLiberal Party and I am sure the National Party, and Ihope the Labor Party in this place, will agree to altersome of the terms of reference already given to the

WORKCOVER: PREMIUMS


committee to accommodate the fact that it has asignificant, although not overpowering, workload.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous — How do you know?

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL — Because I read the publicreports, you dill!

Hon. T. C. Theophanous — Are you on thecommittee?

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL — You may be aware,although facts, truth and information are rarely part ofyour repertoire, that committees issue reports on theirwork. If you read the reports you know what they aredoing. That is the answer to your question of how Iknow! The fact that I know is an indication that thecommittee can do this work and has the full capacity todo the work. I look forward to the Labor Party agreeingto the motion, but if today’s predictable and infantileinterjections by Mr Theophanous are an indication thatthe Labor government will argue that committeescannot do any more work and, in particular, committeescan do extra work only if approved by the executive,the Labor government will demonstrate its true coloursand show that it supports and resources parliamentarycommittees only if it agrees with the references that goto them.

As I said earlier, if a committee says to the house atsome stage in the future that its workload has led it tothe conclusion that it wishes to alter the time frame setout in the terms of reference, I would be sympathetic tothat request. Indeed, as evidence of that, notice ofmotion 2 standing in my name is exactly on that point.It refers to the Scrutiny of Acts and RegulationsCommittee, an all-party parliamentary committee thathas a Labor Party majority, which has approached meseeking to alter the terms of reference given to it. Itbelieves it should be able to complete its workload by30 November 2001 rather than 30 June 2001.

It is reasonable for that committee to be able to alter itsworkload, and certainly the Liberal Party, and I trust theNational Party, will support its being able to change thetime frames in response to the work it has in front of it.That is proof positive that the opposition is responsiveto demands placed on a committee, but it is also proofpositive that extra work can be given to a committeeand accommodated professionally. If the EconomicDevelopment Committee had any concerns after it gotthe reference under way it could voice its concerns tothe house.

Why does the house need this inquiry? The inquiry isneeded because Workcover premiums have soaredunder the Labor government. The increases were

unexpected and unexplained, and the businesscommunity has found them unsatisfactory.

There have been some remarkable stories about howthe increases have impacted on individuals. I shallquote only two of them because I believe the debate soably led by Mr Katsambanis last week illustrated ourconcerns on Workcover. We do not need to go over thatdebate again. No-one will stand up in this chamber andsay there is no debate about Workcover premiumincreases. It would be inexplicable for someone toargue against this reference on the basis that it is not anissue.

I cite two cases: one from the private sector and onefrom the public sector. The increases in Workcovercharges impact not only on private businesses but alsoon public sector employers, both of which have to findthe money. The Australian Industry Group, in its latestpublication entitled Industry for July–August 2000,editorialised about the changes. Under the heading‘Huge Workcover increases anger members’ it states:

Many Australian Industry Group members in Victoria havebeen shocked by huge increases in their Workcoverpremiums for 2000–01.

The rises are far greater than they were led to expect in Aprilwhen the government foreshadowed increases to underwritethe costs of restoring common law to the system.

By way of example, a typical medium-sized AI Groupmember reported an increase of $500 000 — the equivalent ofseveral jobs — to $1.2 million in its annual premium.Another medium-sized member reported that its premium hasincreased from $100 000 to $242 000.

Those increased costs came out of the blue for thosebusinesses. I can understand the concern of theAustralian Industry Group, which represents virtuallyevery medium-sized business in this state, and inparticular its important coverage of manufacturingbusinesses.

However, we are hearing a parallel series of complaintsfrom the public sector, and perhaps those have beenless well aired because many people in the public sectorfear victimisation from the Labor government if theyair their complaints. We know that the public sector hasto find the money to meet the increased costs of theWorkcover bill. An example is the Country FireAuthority (CFA), which has suddenly been hit with anincreased Workcover bill but has no correspondingincrease in its budget allocation to pay for it. It isaxiomatic that in the absence of a budget increase youhave to cut somewhere else.

It has been reported that the CFA’s budgetedWorkcover bill will rise from $1.1 million in the

WORKCOVER: PREMIUMS


year 2000 to an expected $1.64 million in the nextbusiness year. If that occurs, the CFA will have to findan additional $540 000 to meet an unexpected workerscompensation charge imposed by the Laborgovernment.

The government might say in response to those twosymbolic examples, ‘Well, they can come in and talk tous. We can have a round-table meeting and we mightbe able to alter it’. However, the bottom line is that thegovernment has brought in charges that affect not justone member of the Australian Industry Group and onepublic sector organisation; they affect tens of thousandsof employers, be they from the government sector orthe commercial sector.

According to the Labor government’s spokesman, billsthat were meant to go up by about 15 per cent to 17 percent in fact have gone up 30, 40 or 100 per cent or evenmore. That is why there is a need for that increase to beexplained before the public hearings of an all-partyparliamentary committee. It could be done against thebackdrop that employers had grown to expect lowerWorkcover premiums and not higher ones. Not only arewe hearing an outcry from business because thepremiums have gone up, we are hearing an outcry frombusinesses because they expected the premiums to keepgoing down.

It is no good for the current Labor government to say itspremiums are now lower than those of most otherstates. Under the coalition government they were lowerthan those of every other state. It is no good for theLabor government to say that the premiums haveincreased because it wanted to bring in common-lawrights, because the charges have been increased bymore than the percentage that was explained as beingnecessary for the introduction of common-law rights.We know that those charge increases are far higher thanLabor said they would be.

So far the increases have been unexplained, and theyare not the result of the introduction of the GST. At thevery least those charges can be claimed back as part ofthe GST arrangement, although the AustralianCompetition and Consumer Commission directlyrebuked the Labor government for the misleading wayit communicated that fact to Workcover payees. As aresult of the ACCC’s intervention the government hadto back away from its misleading statements. It had toreprint the information it had given to people who payWorkcover premiums and was caught out again formisleading. No, the complaint is about the fact that as aconsequence of all the Labor government’s changes,premiums have gone through the roof for tens ofthousands of employers. The complaint, therefore, is

that those employers feel that their economiccircumstances have been so impaired that they may notput on the discretionary extra employee they mighthave taken on, or they might not keep the discretionaryemployee on their payroll now because the position istenuous because of the increased costs to the business.

I refer to the example of the typical Australian IndustryGroup member. If your Workcover premium bill wentup from $700 000 to $1.2 million, as the groupaccurately reports, you would be asking yourself,‘Where the hell will I find the extra half-million dollarsto meet the bill?’. The ideological trade unionmovement, so ably represented in the Parliament thesedays by the Labor Party, would say, ‘Oh, the bosses canfind it out of their profits’. That is not said publicly bythe Bracks government because it is a pro-businessgovernment. The pro-business government has beencaught out being anti-business.

The opposition believes it is important for those issuesand the Labor Party’s contrasting arguments to be airedin a public forum. They will not be just my argumentsand they will not be just the arguments from thebusiness community. I suspect the Trades Hall Councilwill want to come along and explain how all this isgood. Mr Theophanous might want to give evidencehimself and tell us how he inspired it. We look forwardto those who are responsible being held to account.

Even though the government will not like this inquiry, Ihope it will show its support for openness andaccountability by accepting the existence of the inquiry.I would be supremely disappointed if the governmentvoted against the motion simply because it likesparliamentary committees only if they praise the LaborParty. It likes inquiries only if they support the LaborParty, and of course not all inquiries can achieve thatoutcome, nor should they.

The important reference to the committee, like thereference referred to in my second notice of motion,keeps faith with the idea of parliamentary committeesbeing able to discuss matters and then reachconclusions on them. Majority and minority reports areexpected in a highly charged political environment. Wewould all be mugs if we did not agree to that occurring.However, the reality is that the great purpose of thepublic hearings held by parliamentary committees isthat they allow ordinary citizens to have a say and beheard as part of the parliamentary process. It is likehaving your day in court; in the context of publicpolicy, you have your day in the parliamentary sphereand hopefully obtain a response from a government thatrealises it has made some mistakes.

WORKCOVER: PREMIUMS


I urge all honourable members to support the referenceto the Economic Development Committee. I lookforward to the committee taking on the task, which willnot only enhance the stature of the Parliament but alsohelp it solve the Workcover problems.

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for IndustrialRelations) — The government believes the motion hassome shortcomings and as a result I will move severalminor amendments to it. Firstly, I will make a couple ofpoints about Labor’s election commitment, part ofwhich was to restore common-law rights to seriouslyinjured workers and to ensure in doing so that thescheme was fully funded.

The government has already undertaken two majorreports on Workcover, the Masel report and thecommon-law working party report, both of which hadextensive input by stakeholders. More importantly, theyhave provided some insight into the financialmismanagement of the scheme. The abolition ofcommon-law rights produced budget shortfalls, and asthe previous government did not take the appropriateaction to redress financial concerns about the VictorianWorkcover Authority, it left a $300 million black hole.That amount would have been far greater had it notbeen for high investment returns. The authoritybudgeted for a 5 per cent return on investments butreceived a 12 per cent return. Had it not done so thefigure of $300 million would have been substantiallyhigher.

The government recognises that Victorian businesseshave had difficulties as a result of the introduction ofthe GST and related compliance costs. The governmentmet recently with peak employer groups, and theVictorian Workcover Authority agreed to a package ofmeasures to assist businesses whose premiums haveincreased. The government has met with the businessesand given those undertakings. The package alsoincludes an undertaking to employers who dispute theirpremium rises — such as the one the Honourable KenSmith referred me to last night on the adjournmentdebate — that there will be immediate responses totheir requests for a review of their premiums and that areassessment will take place if appropriate.

The government has also given a commitment toemployers who have genuine hardships meeting theirpremiums to make individual arrangements forpayment of those premiums. Another commitment willenable those employers who had the automatic 20 percent premium increase imposed because they had notlodged forward estimates of their wages bills to havethat rate reassessed and recalculated.

The government has answered the issues raised by theemployers. However, it has gone further and said it willreview the experience rating system. That review willbe undertaken in the next few months in consultationwith businesses. It has also said it would specificallylook at packages for small businesses, and it hopes toannounce details of that shortly after furtherconsultation with small businesses. The governmenthas made commitments to go further than the previousgovernment ever did on issues relating to Workcoverpremiums. It has also foreshadowed a comprehensivereview of business taxes; in its seven years the previousgovernment never even attempted to do anything likethat.

Victorians Workcover premiums are below the nationalaverage. The Bracks government is unlike theopposition because it wants a scheme that providesincentives for businesses to reduce their premiums byensuring that their workplaces are safe and that workersare not injured. The motion omits several of thoseareas, and therefore I move the following amendmentto it:

1. In paragraph (a), after ‘premiums’ insert:

‘including —

(i) the cost of legislative changes;

(ii) the effects of liability blow-outs in the past fivefinancial years; and

(iii) the effect of the GST’.

2. In paragraph (f) omit ‘whether’ and insert ‘what’.

3. After paragraph (f), insert the following new paragraph:

(g) ‘the effect of increased numbers of safetyinspectors and greater emphasis on occupationalhealth and safety in keeping average premiumscompetitive into the future’.

I will go through the proposed amendments to themotion. Paragraph (a) of Mr Birrell’s notice ofmotion 1 reads:

the reasons for the level of those premiums;

and the government wishes to add:

including —

(i) the cost of legislative changes;

(ii) the effects of liability blow-outs in the past five financialyears; and

(iii) the effect of the GST.

WORKCOVER: PREMIUMS


They are areas the government believes need to betaken into consideration when the review proposed bythe motion is undertaken because they impact on thepremiums. They are not exclusive or exhaustiveconsiderations. The work involved would includetaking into account the costs of the legislative changes,because they are the major reason why the premiumswent up, acknowledging the effects of liabilityblow-outs over the past five years and the effects of theGST.

The second amendment relates to paragraph (f) of themotion, which states:

whether changes should be made to the manner in whichWorkcover premiums are determined in future.

The government has announced that it is undertaking areview and that it will incorporate changes. Theproposal is to delete ‘whether’ and insert ‘what’, andthe paragraph would then refer to the changes thecommittee is being asked to come up with. As theLeader of the Opposition said, parliamentarycommittees are established to put proposals before thegovernment. The government is not arguing aboutwhether changes are needed; it is giving the committeethe opportunity to investigate what changes should takeplace rather than whether they should take place. Thegovernment acknowledges that changes are needed.

The third amendment is to add the following paragraphto take into account the whole purpose behind havingWorkcover premiums:

(g) the effect of increased numbers of safety inspectors andgreater emphasis on occupational health and safety inkeeping average premiums competitive into the future.

Workcover premiums enable employers to pay theirinjured workers; the premiums decrease if the numberof injuries is reduced. The opposition’s acceptance ofthe amendments I moved will enhance the motionbecause the Economic Development Committee’sterms of reference will then take into account aninvestigation of areas that qualify for reducedpremiums. The committee will then not exclusively orexhaustively need to concentrate on why premiumshave increased, the legislative changes, and the effectsof the Workcover liability blow-out and the GST.

If amended, the motion would ask the committee toreport to the house on the changes that should takeplace rather than have it recommend whether changesshould take place. The amended motion wouldacknowledge that changes should be made and that thegovernment is undertaking reviews of Workcover.

Workcover is designed to protect workers. Its emphasisis on improving workplace safety and on reducinginjuries to workers. Workers go to work believing theywill return home safely and in the same physicalcondition as when they left home. They do not want toreturn home after having been injured or maimed atwork.

The amendments enhance and do not walk away fromthe motion. They provide better guidance to theEconomic Development Committee and they willensure that it investigates the relevant issues. TheBracks government is open and accountable, and it hasno objection to the motion. I ask opposition members toseriously consider supporting the government’samendments, which should assist rather than hinder thecommittee’s investigations.

On that basis I urge all honourable members to supportthe amendments to ensure that the motion becomes asound reference to the Economic DevelopmentCommittee.

Hon. C. A. STRONG (Higinbotham) — Theopposition sees no purpose in the government’samendment 1 that refers to premium levels. The motionmoved by the Honourable Mark Birrell is all embracingand does not prevent the Economic DevelopmentCommittee from investigating or considering anyreason for increased Workcover premiums.

The government’s unnecessary amendment 1 seeks toadd three subparagraphs to the motion. If it wishes, thecommittee can decide to investigate the specifics listedin the amendment. The opposition does not supportamendment 1.

The opposition supports amendment 2, which changesa word. Amendment 3 seeks to take the committee’sinquiry into a different area of occupational health andsafety, but it does not directly deal with the issue. Themotion concentrates on how and why premiums haveincreased, and so on. The committee’s inquiry willreveal whether the government believes its newoccupational health and safety regime significantlyimpacts on premiums. I presume that consideration hasbeen factored into the premiums. That issue isprospective and the amendment is irrelevant. Theopposition does not support amendment 3.

I refer to the motion in general. An inquiry by theEconomic Development Committee should have asignificant impact on the level of future Workcoverpremiums because its inquiry will not be like some ofthe pseudo inquiries that have been carried out by thegovernment, with stacked, predictable and pre-ordained

WORKCOVER: PREMIUMS


outcomes. An inquiry resulting from the passage of themotion will examine the economic impact of increasedWorkcover premiums. I will dwell on that aspect later.

The committee’s inquiry will be transparent. It will beable to call people to give evidence on oath and tosubpoena people who are reluctant to attend hearings.The inquiry will enable people in government, businessor whatever, to talk to the committee about theirWorkcover problems. The transparent process willenable the committee to gain an understanding of whathas happened, why it has happened and to recommendsolutions.

I am pleased that the government has sought not tooppose the proposed inquiry because at the end of theday its outcome should be positive. IncreasedWorkcover premiums are a major problem to business;they are and will continue to be a festering sore for thegovernment. Victorian business, the economy and thegovernment will benefit if the investigatory committeeprocess provides a remedy to heal that festering sore.

I shall touch on an aspect that is critically important ingovernment actions. Any government, including theBracks government, should keep uppermost in its mindthat its fundamental responsibility is to the people ofVictoria. The best thing a government can do for itscitizens is to provide them with jobs. Victorians shouldbe employed; they should make enough money to seetheir families grow up safely in good households. Agood economy does just that: it provides thecommunity with good, well-paid jobs.

Regardless of whether we like it, the world is acompetitive place. Victoria and Australia are smallplayers in the world scene. If jobs are to be provided theVictorian and Australian economies must becompetitive; otherwise there will be no jobs or workerswill become poorly paid as the economies of the stateand the nation are ground down.

Government members need only reflect on their laststint in government when, over many years, theycrushed the Victorian economy with the net result thatVictorians suffered. People left Victoria in droves andlived in states that were regarded as more economicallycompetitive.

They left this state without jobs and with debt. This isenormously important: the most important thing agovernment can do is protect the economy, because thatmeans jobs. The best thing a government can do for itscitizens is give them jobs and the security that comeswith that.

The Economic Development Committee is very muchthe appropriate place to deal with those economicissues, to put them up front and to look at the impacts.The huge increase in Workcover premiums knocksabout our international competitiveness in a significantway, and as the major manufacturing state in AustraliaVictoria is doubly hurt by that. We are not isolated; wehave to compete with competitors around the world. Ifwe do not, we will be gradually submerged.

The Australian and the Victorian economies are goingextremely well at the moment. We have done extremelywell in the areas of import replacement and exports. Weneed to put that into the context of the moment. Wehave a booming world economy which allows us tohave export markets and in terms of import replacementmeans that the world economy has many other places towhich it wants to send its exports, and perhaps it is notas competitive when it wants to penetrate Australia as arelatively small market. There is absolutely no doubtthat the current level of the Australian dollar has beenan enormous benefit to local industry. There is no doubtthat the GST will go a long way towards correcting theimbalance that existed between imports and importreplacements. The GST will help that significantly, aswill the historically low Australian interest rates. At thispoint of time there are a lot of things going for thiseconomy.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous — A Labor governmentin Victoria is one of them.

Hon. C. A. STRONG — I must say,Mr Theophanous, that very few of the things I have runthrough have anything do with the Labor governmentin Victoria.

When the economy is going well and all those thingsare working for us we are able to take on a few poisonpills, as it were, without any impact. When things aregoing really well we can take a little extra weight in thesaddlebags and not notice it. Unfortunately there is atendency for Labor governments to use the time whenthings are going well to load that extra weight into thesaddlebags, but things will not always be going well.When things start to turn, and they inevitably will,when the Australian dollar parity starts to improve, ifinterest rates start to increase, and if the world economystarts to slow down a little, all these nasties, all thisextra weight will be brought to bear. They will comecrushing down on the Victorian economy andWorkcover, in particular, has a major cost impact.These things build up and, as we saw under thestewardship of the last Labor government, when thatdam bursts the results can be extremely bad for thenation and the state.

WORKCOVER: PREMIUMS


The Economic Development Committee will look atthe impact of all issues that build up. We have hadanother example in the past couple of days in industrialrelations. Once again Victoria seems to be moving torecalcify its industrial relations situation. After twodecades of federal governments of both persuasionswinding back and freeing up industrial relations,Victoria is heading back to recalcify the old-timeindustrial relations system. All of these factors willbuild up and when the economy starts to slow down ourcompetitiveness will be adversely affected. Victoriawill suffer, businesses will move, our citizens will findthemselves without good jobs and a population shifttowards the north will re-establish itself. These areimportant issues that the Economic DevelopmentCommittee can deal with. We hope the committee willtry to educate the government about the implications ofwhat it has done and get it to see logic and make somechanges to Workcover premiums.

I have much pleasure in supporting the motion andindicating the opposition’s position on the threeamendments: it will support amendment 2 and will notsupport amendments 1 and 3.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Jika Jika) — Letme say at the outset as a member of the EconomicDevelopment Committee and the deputy to thechairman, Neil Lucas, that of course the committee willconduct itself professionally on any references sent to itand will do so in accordance with its legislativerequirements; there is absolutely no doubt about that.

However, at the minimum I am somewhat surprisedthat this motion has been moved at this time. Thecommittee will have to reprioritise, and it is importantto put on the record what it will have to reprioritise toconduct this reference. Currently the committee isengaged in a reference relating to the impact of thegoods and services tax in Victoria. That report is due tocome to the Parliament in the next month. It has been avery intensive inquiry that has consumed the energiesof the committee. Beyond that, the committee has areference that is due at the same time as the referencebeing proposed today. That reference relates to aninquiry into structural changes in the Victorianeconomy, including assessing the impact of structuralchanges in banking, postal communications, municipalservices, public transport, and employment services.This is an important inquiry that goes to the heart ofsome of the things Mr Strong was raising in hiscontribution about maintaining a strong economy. Thedifficulty that the committee will face — and it is noteasy; it is a very difficult thing — is that that inquiry isdue to report by the first day of the spring 2001parliamentary sessional period, and that coincides with

the reporting requirement being put before the house inrelation to this reference.

That in effect means that the committee will have tomake a decision on the basis of two references that aredue at exactly the same time. Unfortunately thecommittee will not be able to be guided by thelegislative framework because under the ParliamentaryCommittees Act the committee may be given areference from either Parliament or the executive andno priority is given to either of those references. Isuppose that the time at which the references weregiven might form some of the advice the committeemight take, but ultimately that will have to be a decisionof the committee. I have no doubt that the oppositionintends to use its numbers on the committee to makesure that the inquiry into the Victorian economy and thestructural changes in it is downgraded relative to thereferences being sought today.

The other issue is that the opposition put up two furtherreferences to the Economic Development Committee. Iwould have thought they were important because theyincluded a reference to examine the incidence of youthunemployment in Victoria and options for promotingemployment growth over the coming decade — a veryimportant reference. The opposition put it up in aserious way as something it wanted the committee to doand the house agreed to it, but the Leader of theOpposition did not mention that reference in hiscontribution. He has not said whether the opposition isstill serious about the inquiry into youth unemploymentor whether it was simply a stunt — something theopposition put up and had no intention of conducting.

The opposition will assign a short-term inquiry to theEconomic Development Committee at every politicallyopportune time for purely political purposes. I would beinterested to know from some members of theopposition whether they are serious about the referencethat has come to the Economic DevelopmentCommittee to examine youth unemployment inVictoria and whether the committee will ever getaround to conducting an inquiry on it.

Similarly, the opposition put up a reference to thecommittee about export opportunities for Victorianrural industries. I would have thought that a proactivereference that sought to identify niche markets andexport opportunities for rural industries might havebeen an important reference for the committee toconduct within a reasonable time. Instead, thosereferences that were worked out in the spirit of wantingthe committee to do some valuable and long-term workwill be pushed to one side, not just by the highlypolitical reference currently before the house but also

WORKCOVER: PREMIUMS


by a series of similar references to the committee. Theyare there for the sole purpose of enabling the oppositionto use its numbers on that committee to embarrass thegovernment in some way or other.

That is not in line with the longstanding traditions ofparliamentary committees. It undermines the committeesystem and it shows again that the opposition is notserious about proper references; all it wants to is scoresome cheap political points, as can be seen by the factthat today the opposition is not even prepared to acceptreasonable amendments put up by the government. Byvoting down the amendment the opposition is giving asignal to the committee that it should not be serious inlooking at the effects of blow-outs in the VictorianWorkcover Authority over the past five financial years.

Why is that? Why shouldn’t the committee be seriousabout examining what the previous government mighthave done to cause it to leave the Workcover systemwith a significant unfunded liability that has to be paidfor and caught up with? Why shouldn’t it be seriousabout the effect of the GST premiums, or consider thatsomehow it is not an important issue for it to examine?The hypocrisy of the opposition can be seen by the veryfact that it is not prepared to give the committee adirection on an examination of all the issues that mighthave led to the increase in Workcover premiums.

It is unfortunate that the opposition has decided not tosupport that amendment. The lame excuse put up byMr Strong that the committee can look at anything andthat the government should not identify anything inparticular that they should look at — —

Hon. C. A. Strong interjected.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS — Mr Strong knowsvery well that that is simply an excuse to use thenumbers in the deliberations of the committee —deliberations which nobody in the public eye will see. Itis an excuse to use the numbers that the oppositioncontrols in that committee to ensure that those thingsare not looked at, that the GST is not looked at.

Hon. C. A. Strong interjected.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS — The fact is thatthe government does not have the numbers on thatcommittee. I have no doubt that the opposition intendsto use its numbers to make sure that anything that mightbe embarrassing to the opposition will not be looked at.That is what that is all about, and that is why it wasimportant for the government to put on the record thatthe current opposition is not willing to look at all of theissues that might have contributed to increasedpremiums.

It is absolutely disgraceful that the opposition is notprepared to accept the government’s amendment and tolook at other factors on the prevention side ofWorkcover that may have an effect on premiums. Theopposition knows very well that the current governmenthas a strong commitment to prevention — one whichthe opposition never had. It played lip-service toprevention. The government is serious aboutprevention. It put inspectors out in workplaces toreduce accidents in a concrete way. If that is not to be apart of what the committee will look at it will be one ofthe factors the opposition has ruled out.

If the committee can identify that there will belong-term advantages of premium reductions as a resultof better occupational health and safety regimes orincreased numbers of inspectors the government willnot be able to put that into a report because theopposition has decided that it will rule out examinationof all of the facts. So much for the nonsense the Leaderof the Opposition has put before the house in hisnormal pious and ridiculous way, trying to suggest thatsomehow the opposition stands on some high moralground.

There have been many opportunities for the currentopposition to examine the Workcover issue. During thecourse of the work of the Public Accounts andEstimates Committee, its former chairman, theHonourable Bill Forwood, who will be much missed bythe committee — —

Hon. R. A. Best — He won’t miss you!

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS — I am not sureabout that. During his chairmanship of the PublicAccounts and Estimates Committee members of thethen opposition constantly argued that there should bean inquiry into Workcover. When the Auditor-Generalwas working out his program for performance audits,then opposition members of the committee suggestedstrongly that the claims management regime of theTransport Accident Commission should be contrastedwith the claims management regime that had beenfollowed by the Victorian Workcover Authority. It wasour view at that time that the Victorian WorkcoverAuthority’s claims management left a lot to be desiredwhen compared with the Transport AccidentCommission system.

The minutes of the committee for the meeting of27 July 1999 show that the Attorney-General moved:

That the committee approve the proposed performance auditprogram, with amendments to the Workcover audit to includethe management of injury claims.

WORKCOVER: PREMIUMS


The government has been serious about examining theVictorian Workcover Authority and how it operates. Itis not this side of the house that should be underscrutiny about this scheme. Members of thegovernment have nothing to hide. It is important to puton the record that the Workcover system as it standstoday, apart from the recent legislative changes, is verymuch the product of the previous government, inparticular the experience rating system, which was putin place as part of the previous government’s changes.

The majority of the large increases illustrated by theexamples cited by the opposition derive from theexperience rating system put in place by the previousgovernment. The experience rating system results insignificant shifts year by year, depending on thenumber of injuries in the relevant industry.

I recall the arguments that took place when theexperience rating system was introduced, particularlyabout the adverse effects the system would have onsmall and medium-sized businesses. The history of theimpact of the experience rating system on small andmedium-sized businesses is easy to trace. During thecourse of its period in government the previousgovernment managed a wholesale shift in theproportion of the total premium paid by small andmedium-sized businesses from under 50 per cent toover 60 per cent — in other words, there was anincrease of a full 10 per cent in the proportion of thetotal pool of premiums that was paid by small andmedium-sized businesses. The previous governmenttook no account of the fact that even the IndustryCommission had said in its report on Workcover that itwas inappropriate to use the full experience ratingsystem for small and medium-sized businesses and thatit would have been more appropriate to have atwo-tiered system with the bonus and penalty schemebeing used for the small and medium-sized businesses.

The government will cooperate with this inquiry, and asa member of the committee I will also cooperate.Members of the government are happy to identify allthe issues relating to this issue. I hope the oppositiondoes not try to restrict the inquiry of the committee to anarrow ambit of matters that it believes it may be ableto use for cheap political purposes, because that wouldbe a recipe for ensuring the committee does notfunction properly and does not produce an appropriatereport.

Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern) — I ampleased to support the motion moved by the Leader ofthe Opposition. There is no doubt aboutMr Theophanous, he never changes! He alwaysattempts to paint a picture of the opposition being up to

no good and planning to use its numbers on acommittee to hide things or take an inquiry in aparticular direction. He never produces evidence excepthis own experience, because that is exactly the way heconducts himself on committees. If he can use thenumbers, stack something, or organise it to go off in acertain direction, that is exactly what he does.

Hon. M. A. Birrell — Or a certain destination.

Hon. W. R. BAXTER — Or a certain destination. Ican see his work in the amendments moved by theLeader of the Government. It is clear that theTheophanous principle has been at work. Amendment 1is an endeavour to both limit and confine. The first termof reference in the motion is:

(a) the reasons for the level of those premiums.

One could not have a wider reference than that.Mr Theophanous attempts to limit the opposition byhaving the committee concentrate on certain aspects ofwhy the premiums may have increased rather thangiving the committee carte blanche to inquire into allthe reasons for the premium changes.

Subparagraph (ii) of proposed amendment 1 states:

the effects of liability blow-outs in the past five financialyears …

That is clearly an attempt to have the committee go offon an excursion. No evidence was produced to suggestthere had been liability blow-outs. Mr Theophanouswants Parliament to agree to a motion that containsthose words. If that were done Parliament would appearto agree that liability blow-outs have occurred beforethe committee even has a chance to see whether that istrue.

I have no objection to the committee investigating thataspect, but I will not be party to having Parliamentappear to make it a fact. I was interested inMr Theophanous’s earlier interjection that he mightgive evidence to the committee on the previousgovernment’s financial mismanagement of Workcover.I hope he takes up his own offer because it will enablethe committee to test the allegations he constantlymakes in this place. Let the committee putMr Theophanous under the hammer. Let the committeesee what sort of evidence he can educe, because Isuspect that, as always, he will be found wanting.

In his opening remarks Mr Theophanous suggested thatthe committee is too busy to undertake this inquiry andthat there are too many other things going on, such asreferences sent by the opposition. ObviouslyMr Theophanous failed to listen to the Leader of the

WORKCOVER: PREMIUMS


Opposition when he said he was perfectly willing toentertain an extension of the time limit if the committeeformed the view that it needed more time. In suggestingthat the committee is too busy and that it has othermatters of pressing importance on its agenda,Mr Theophanous is not listening to the people ofVictoria. The cry to all honourable members is that theincreased Workcover premiums are horrendous andneed further examination.

If Mr Theophanous and government members werelistening to the people of Victoria they would have nodifficulty in determining the committee’s priorities. Theno. 1 priority ought to be: get on with this reference if itis referred to the committee by the house today.

I am keen to support the motion because theexplanation from the Leader of the Government inresponse to Mr Katsambanis’s motion last week wasentirely unsatisfactory. The Minister assisting theMinister for Workcover did not explain why thepremium increases are so high. In the intervening weekno explanation has been forthcoming, despite the termsof the motion calling for that information to be madeavailable.

I do not object to this house sending a reference to theEconomic Development Committee. The governmentsays it wants the Legislative Council to be a house ofreview. A letter this week in my local newspaper, theBorder-Mail, from the Labor Party candidate for thefederal seat of Indi calls on the Legislative Council toact as a house of review and to do more committeework. If the motion is agreed to a reference will be sentto the committee. I believe in open and accountablegovernment, and the Labor Party certainly made that itscredo at the last election. It went to the people on thatpoint, alleging that the former government was notopen and accountable and that a Bracks governmentwould be open, honest and accountable. Here is anopportunity for the government to demonstrate its bonafides. The government will support the motion, but ithas moved amendments that attempt to confine thecommittee.

Amendment 3 is an attempt to send the committee offon an excursion that has little to do with the motion ofthe Leader of the Opposition and the intent of themotion, which is to look at the reasons for the currentincrease in Workcover premiums and not to go off andexamine what they might be in the future if amendment3 is adopted and more inspectors are careering aroundthe place telling employers what to do. It is a cleverploy by Mr Theophanous and his colleagues in theLabor Party to have the committee do something quite

different from what Mr Birrell’s motion intends. I rejectamendment 3.

I support paragraph (c) of Mr Birrell’s motion, whichdeals with the impact the premiums have had and canbe expected to have on economic activity andemployment in regional and rural Victoria, because thatis where the big impact is being felt. I know suburbanbusinesses are being substantially affected, but many ofthe employers on the higher rates are risk industries andtend to be located in country Victoria. They aresuffering enormously, and I believe the premiums willhave a huge impact on employment prospects incountry Victoria.

I shall provide several examples in the electorate ofBenalla. I am sure the people concerned have made thehonourable member for Benalla in the other placeaware of their concerns. A letter from a buildingcontractor states:

I was allocated an increase in estimated remuneration of$7084 at a time when the building industry is facing a totalnose dive in job starts and facing a bleak recovery over thenext few years …

…

I am outraged by the increases and I will not be voting for aLabor government at the next election …

I do not think he will be alone. Another letter from aconstruction company representative states:

Premiums for 1999–2000 year totalled $11 172.28 and for theyear 2000–01 year they are $19 980.92, which is an increaseof $8808.64, or is another $170 per week I have to budget for.

Hon. R. A. Best — Almost another person!

Hon. W. R. BAXTER — That is exactly what hegoes on to say, Mr Best.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous — You have not shownMr Best your notes?

Hon. W. R. BAXTER — No; Mr Best is veryastute. The employer further states:

… I was in the process of employing another person but Ihave had to shelve this thought at this stage.

A plumber from the Benalla area states:

We were of the opinion last year’s premium was far too high.I don’t know if you can appreciate how we felt after readingthe bottom line on our new premium. A rise from $3100 to$8600 to keep three tradesmen, one apprentice and threelabourers. We have let one tradesman go and we will not bereplacing him. One labourer has had his hours reduced …

…

WORKCOVER: PREMIUMS


In short, the returns are no longer there for the effort and timewe are putting into the business to remain viable.

That is another example of how employment is beingaffected. An employer from an engineering works inBenalla states:

[It is] a very substantial increase in such financially difficulttimes, considering we have only had one claim sinceWorkcover began. We were planning to start anotherapprentice shortly but we will not be proceeding with thisaction because of these additional costs.

They are just a small selection of the letters I havereceived that show employment in rural Victoria will besubstantially damaged by the increased Workcoverpremiums. It is another reason for the EconomicDevelopment Committee to have a good look at thereason for the increase to see if it can be explained and,more importantly, to see if it can be reduced.

I, too, see the committee concept as a safety valve.Employers, who had been led to believe by thegovernment and the minister in particular that therewould be an increase of 17 per cent to account for therestoration of common-law rights for workers, arefeeling let down. They did not like the concept but theywere prepared to accept that it was going to happen.However, then they got lumbered with these increases.

Employers feel severely let down and want an outlet inwhich to state their case, and the EconomicDevelopment Committee will enable that to occur.

The letters I have read to the house reveal an enormousloss of confidence. We all know confidence is a fragilething. Once confidence starts to ebb, it flows awayquickly. I agree with Mr Strong’s comment that a lot ofgood things are occurring in the Australian economybut few if any have anything to do with thisgovernment. The economy is strong, but it relies onconfidence. The increased Workcover premiums couldsee the beginning of confidence being severelyundermined.

Employers will have the opportunity to come to thecommittee and put forward constructive ideas on howpremiums can be managed or reduced in the future. AWodonga employer, Rancho Holdings Pty Ltd, a largewarehouse business and an excellent entrepreneur, isconcerned at the way Workcover is administered andthe rights the company has as an employer to ensure itsemployees conduct themselves in the workplace in asafe and responsible manner, particularly regardingalcohol and drugs. It finds it difficult to run itsworkplace in the way it believes it should and the wayit believes it is compelled to run it under theOccupational Health and Safety Act. I have

recommended to that employer, as I haverecommended to many other employers, that it take theopportunity to give evidence to the committee. Thatwill enable it to put forward its views and thus report toParliament on how it believes the Workcover systemcan be improved and the responsibilities between theemployer and the employee can be better balanced.Most importantly, the community will be able to get tothe bottom of these largely unexplained but heavyincreases in Workcover premiums.

Hon. G. W. JENNINGS (Melbourne) — I wouldnot want to miss my opportunity to indicate thegovernment’s support of the appropriate use of theParliamentary Committees Act and appropriatereferences to committees that fall within the scope ofthat act. I support the Economic DevelopmentCommittee inquiring into important matters of the day,including this important issue of the effect ofWorkcover premiums on Victorian businesses.

This issue has been the subject of debate in this placeduring the past week, and during that debate I outlinedthe government’s response to concerns raised in thecommunity about the effect of increased Workcoverpremiums on Victorian businesses. I expressed thegovernment’s response to those concerns.

I shall briefly put on the record how the governmenthas responded to the concerns and why the views ofmembers of the government supplement the referenceproposed by Mr Birrell and work hand and glove withthe motion he has moved.

Soon after the Victorian Workcover Authority hadissued the new premiums for Victorian businesses forthe current financial year the Premier, the Minister forWorkcover and the Minister for Small Business metwith peak employer groups and the authority andagreed on a package of measures to assist businesseswhose premiums had increased. That package includeda commitment to enable any employer who believes hispremium was adjusted inappropriately to seek an urgentand immediate review of the premium and obtain anundertaking from the authority about the derivation ofthe premium. Employers who have had an automatic20 per cent adjustment to their payrolls, which was anadministrative practice to encourage employers to lodgeaccurate figures for their payrolls for this financial year,obviously perceive it as a draconian measure. Thegovernment has made it clear that any employer whoimmediately identifies the appropriate payroll level tothe authority will receive an immediate adjustment tothe premium that applies to that employer.

WORKCOVER: PREMIUMS


Recently the Minister for Workcover announced thatthe government will institute a review of the premiumregime — the experience rating system, the premiumsbased upon industry sectors and any measures withinthe scheme itself — to address the disproportionateburden that may fall on small businesses. In fact, thegovernment has announced its intention to support apackage for small businesses that may have beenadversely affected.

During the debate last week I said it was important tokeep this issue in perspective. The perspective I bring tothis debate is that within the new premium regimeintroduced for this financial year at least one-third ofVictorian businesses have had their premiums reduced.Even under the regime that has led to concern in thecommunity, Victorian premiums are still well below thenational average.

The government is comfortable with the proposedreference to the Economic Development Committee.The inquiry will run in parallel with the review thegovernment will institute because of its concerns aboutthe impact increased Workcover premiums will have onVictorian businesses and its clear intention to reducethe burden of Workcover premiums in the immediatefuture and in the long term.

The dual focus of the government in ensuring theongoing financial viability of the scheme is the impactof premiums upon businesses and the competitive coststructure of premiums. The government is alsoconcerned to ensure that the Victorian Workcoverauthority plays a constructive role in reducing theincidence of occupational health and safety injuries inthe workplace, which over time will play a role inreducing pressures on premiums. That is the scope ofthe issues that unite the chamber, and both sides of thehouse are comfortable about forwarding a reference tothe Economic Development Committee.

It is interesting that the issues dividing the chamberrelate to proposed amendments to the motion moved byMr Birrell. The motion is reasonably worded and welldrafted and well suited to the reference given to thecommittee. However, the government seeks to vary themotion in three instances.

By its amendments to the terms of reference thegovernment seeks to specify the reasons for the level ofpremium increases and to make it clear that there arethree substantial components to the increases inpremiums during the current financial year. The firstreason is the cost of legislative changes introduced bythe government, which was the restoration ofcommon-law rights for seriously injured workers. The

second reason is the effect of the liability blow-outs inthe past five financial years which has been contestedtoday but which was not an issue during the passage ofthe Workcover legislation earlier in the year.

Consideration of the report on common-law rights thatwas tabled in Parliament and of the financialconsiderations of the scheme as outlined at pages 20 to32 of the report indicates that, despite the bestinformation available to the Victorian WorkcoverAuthority and the government of the day in terms of itsperformance over the past five financial years, therewas an underestimation on the liability of the schemeand at the same time a greater than expected financialreturn from the investment portfolio of the scheme. Ifthat had not been the case the financial exposure of thescheme would have been greater due to anunderestimation of the claims that existed at the time.

Clearly, that is significant in the consideration by thegovernment and the Victorian Workcover Authority ofthe ongoing financial viability of the scheme. Thegovernment seeks to add that to the terms of referencebecause it is a critical consideration when looking at thescheme the current government inherited, and animportant aspect it will need to consider in the future.

The third item the government seeks to include inparagraph (a) of the terms of reference is the impact ofthe GST, which has played a role in premium increasesin that 10 per cent has been added to the premiums paidby employers. As the opposition rightly pointed out thismorning, that component is a tax input credit thatemployers can obtain to reduce the net premium theypay.

They are the three critical issues that have impacted onthe increase to premiums paid by Victorian employers.It is worth putting on the public record, both as part ofthe motion by the house and the consideration by thecommittee, that they are the three prime movers ofpremium increases this year.

By its second amendment the government seeks toamend the Leader of the Opposition’s motion bychanging paragraph (f), which asks that the EconomicDevelopment Committee inquire into:

whether changes should be made to the manner in whichWorkcover premiums are determined in future.

The government seeks to remove the word ‘whether’and replace it with ‘what’. In so doing, it clearlyacknowledges there will be changes to the premiumstructure in the future. It is a concession straight off thebat by the government. Whether there should or should

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES


not be changes is not contested; it is a question of whatchanges should be made.

The gamut of the responsibility of the VictorianWorkcover Authority includes an insurance regime thatapplies to workers compensation and it also has a rolein the prevention of injury and illness in the workplace.That plays a positive part in the reduction of thefinancial liability of the scheme and reduces thepressure on premiums to rise. That is the final issue thegovernment seeks to provide to the terms of referenceof the committee. It believes that, of all the issues, theprime issue that will reduce pressure on premiumsincreasing in the future is improved health and safety inVictorian workplaces.

Amazingly, in the debate this morning the oppositionrefused to allow the role of the authority in reducingpressure on premiums in the future to be considered inits proper context. It refused to acknowledge that thereference given to the Economic DevelopmentCommittee should include any role the VictorianWorkcover Authority may play in health promotion andthat the reduction of the incidence of workplace illnessand injury is the most significant contribution byVictorian workplaces and Victorian employers toreducing the pressure on their premiums in the future.

It is extraordinary that the opposition will oppose thatamendment being added to the terms of reference.Unfortunately, that has thrown into doubt the bona fidesof the review. My colleague Mr Theophanous referredto his doubts about the motivation of the review and theterms of reference as they have been limited by theopposition this morning.

The government is more than prepared to have theactivities of the Victorian Workcover Authority and theissue of the premium determination considered by thecommittee. It is prepared to participate in the review.As I volunteered in my contribution both in the debatelast week and again this morning, the government andthe Victorian Workcover Authority are prepared toimmediately address the concerns of any employer oremployer’s representative about the imposition of thepremium rate increases of this year, and will takeimmediate action for any employer who, in discussionswith the authority, discovers that its premium level hasbeen inappropriately set. They are the direct andimmediate commitments the government willinglyentered into.

The government encourages the EconomicDevelopment Committee to recognise the proper scopeof the reference and thereby supports not only theoriginal motion of the Leader of the Opposition but also

the amendments that have been moved by the Leader ofthe Government. Certainly that is the way I will vote onthe motion.

Amendment 1 negatived.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

House divided on amendment 3:

Ayes, 14Broad, Ms Madden, MrCarbines, Mrs Mikakos, MsDarveniza, Ms Nguyen, MrGould, Ms Romanes, MsHadden, Ms Smith, Mr R. F.Jennings, Mr Theophanous, Mr (Teller)McQuilten, Mr (Teller) Thomson, Ms

Noes, 29Ashman, Mr Furletti, MrAtkinson, Mr Hall, MrBaxter, Mr Hallam, MrBest, Mr (Teller) Katsambanis, MrBirrell, Mr Lucas, MrBishop, Mr Luckins, MrsBoardman, Mr Olexander, MrBowden, Mr Powell, MrsBrideson, Mr Rich-Phillips, Mr (Teller)Coote, Mrs Ross, DrCover, Mr Smith, Mr K. M.Craige, Mr Smith, MsDavis, Mr D. McL. Stoney, MrDavis, Mr P. R. Strong, MrForwood, Mr

Amendment negatived.

Amended motion agreed to.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra) — I move:

That the resolution of the Council of 1 March 2000, requiringthe Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee to inquireinto the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 and to report toParliament by 30 June 2001, be amended so far as to nowrequire the committee to report by 30 November 2001.

The motion alters the time the Scrutiny of Acts andRegulations Committee has to report on the referencethe house gave it earlier this year to look into the futureof parliamentary committees in this state.

On 24 August I received a letter from Mary Gillett, theChair of the Scrutiny of Acts and RegulationsCommittee, noting that the committee had met anddecided to ask that the date for the inquiry’s report beextended to 30 November 2001. I can report that thedecision was unanimous. I congratulate Ms Gillett onadopting that sound procedure of seeking a slightly later

LIQUOR: LICENCES


reporting date to ensure that the committee can betterlook into the issue. I look forward to the committeereporting to the house by November next year on theimportant issue the house has asked it to inquire into.

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for IndustrialRelations) — I also received a letter from Mary Gillett,the honourable member for Werribee in the other placeand the Chair of the Scrutiny of Acts and RegulationsCommittee, asking for an extension of the reportingdate from 30 June 2001 to 30 November 2001, and Isupport that proposal.

Motion agreed to.

LIQUOR: LICENCES

Hon. BILL FORWOOD (Templestowe) — Imove:

That this house calls on the Minister for Small Business toimmediately take all necessary steps to fulfil the LaborParty’s election commitment, contained in its small businesspolicy document, ‘Taking care of small business’, that theBracks Labor government would close legislative loopholeswhich allow large retail chains to accumulate more than 8 percent of the total number of packaged liquor licences.

It is appropriate that this important issue be debatedtoday so soon after the release of the government’sreport. It is disappointing that the house will have only1 hour for debate on the issue, but I am pleased it hasbeen given that opportunity, even though it is limited. Ithank the government for its accommodation inenabling the house to deal with the business ofMr Birrell and also the motion I have moved.

I am also conscious of the fact that the Minister forSmall Business is extraordinarily ill; if I were herdoctor I would send her home. However, I am gratefulshe has decided to stay for the debate. I understand thatshe is ill and I doubt that she will be able to respondquite as vigorously as she may otherwise have done. Iaccept that fact and thank her for being here.

Given those circumstances, it will be difficult for me todiscuss the important motion because I intend to becritical of the minister and her behaviour. I will giveone small example. Following pressure from theopposition, the government’s report has finally beenreleased, but the minister in her wisdom decided itwould be distributed only to Labor members ofParliament. Her department has distributed copies tothe Labor members of Parliament, but none were madeavailable to opposition members. I regard that as petty,small-minded and, frankly, vindictive. It is out ofcharacter for the operations of the Parliament.

I obtained the report off the Web, but I understand thatthe minister in her wisdom decided it would be madeavailable only to Labor members.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous — Did you ask?

Hon. BILL FORWOOD — Yes, I asked. I do nothave a hard copy and government members do. Thataction was petty, small-minded, vindictive andunnecessary; it demeans Parliament. However, I willdeal with the substantive issue, which is simple: whatdid the government promise Victorians, and will thegovernment keep its promise?

Until this morning I was a member of the PublicAccounts and Estimates Committee and this year I satthrough its estimates hearings. I heard more than oneminister tell the committee that the Bracks governmentgives commitments, not promises, and it keeps itscommitments. But will it keep its commitment on thisissue?

The motion calls on the government to take thenecessary steps to fulfil the commitment given duringlast year’s election campaign, that a Labor governmentwould immediately and retrospectively close theloopholes that allow large retail chains to accumulatemore than 8 per cent of the total number of packagedliquor licences.

The then opposition’s policy document revealed that itwas concerned at the growing concentration in the retailliquor hotel and gaming industry and that Labor wouldreinstate an 8 per cent limit on the holding of retailliquor licences.

The Labor Party made it clear that it did not favour theabolition of the 8 per cent rule. Mr Theophanous andthe present Minister for Police and Emergency Servicesin the other place made it clear when liquor reformswere debated in 1998 that they opposed the removal ofthe 8 per cent general liquor licence limit.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous — You didn’t make itclear at the time.

Hon. BILL FORWOOD — I made it clear.

On 25 May 1999 the then shadow Minister for Policeand Emergency Services gave notice of a motion in theother place that states:

Liquor Control Reform (Amendment) Bill

Mr HAERMEYER (Yan Yean) — By leave, I move:

That I have leave to bring in a bill to amend the LiquorControl Reform Act 1998 to correct a loophole relating to thelimit on the proportion of packaged liquor licences that can be

LIQUOR: LICENCES


held by any person, body corporate or related entities, and forother purposes.

The Labor Party has form on the issue; the previousshadow minister has form; and you, Mr Theophanous,have form. The Labor Party policy has form. What areyou doing now, Mr Theophanous? You are walkingaway from your policy. Let us not use mealy-mouthedwords. Let us be clear, Mr Theophanous. Look at thereport, the release of which the opposition forced in thepast couple of days. The government did so onlybecause we got a leak, and that forced the minister torelease it.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous — What a load ofrubbish.

Hon. BILL FORWOOD — Be fair! The terms ofreference released by the Minister for Small Businessshowed that the report was to be finished on 31 May.There can be no dispute about that; nor can there be anydispute about an extension of the reporting date to30 June. There is no doubt that the report was finalisedin the middle of June. I challenge honourable membersto read the report, as I have done, to find that itslanguage indicates that the report was completed before1 July.

What has happened in the, at least, 10 weeks theminister has had the report? What has she done? She saton it because she is in a real dilemma. The minister canhear the flapping of the chickens’ wings as they comehome to roost. The minister does not know how to dealwith the report, which makes recommendations that goagainst the policy the Labor Party took to Victorians atthe last election.

The report recommends against the stance taken by theprevious shadow Minister for Police and EmergencyServices and what Mr Theophanous said in this housewhen he debated the legislation in November 1998. Theminister sat on the report. She released it only when theopposition exerted pressure. Later in my contribution Iwill draw comparisons between what was in theoriginal report prepared by the independent Office ofRegulation Reform and the changed version that hasnow been publicly released on the Internet — but not inhard copy form to members of the opposition. I willreturn to that later. As Mr Theophanous knows, theissue concerns market dominance.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous — You support marketdominance.

Hon. R. A. Best — We rejected it in 1998.

Hon. BILL FORWOOD — Thank you, Mr Best,for your contribution.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! I askMr Theophanous to cease his conversations across thechamber. Mr Forwood has the call.

Hon. BILL FORWOOD — I will go through thehistory. In 1982 a chain of liquor stores, now known asLiquorland, had 61 liquor stores or just short of 8 percent of the total number of packaged liquor licences inVictoria. The government of the day decided to cap at8 per cent the number of licences any organisationcould hold. Mr Nieuwenhuysen in 1987, and theHonourable Chris Strong and the Honourable AndrewBrideson and their colleagues as members of the PublicBodies Review Committee in 1995, recommended theabolition of the 8 per cent liquor licensing law; butthose recommendations were not acted upon.

In 1998 a former minister, the Honourable HaddonStorey, recommended that the 8 per cent packagedliquor licence limit be abolished; but thatrecommendation also was not picked up. Pastgovernments have decided that they would keep the8 per cent limit although there may be an economicimperative by some for doing away with it.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous — You weren’t preparedto close the legal loophole.

Hon. BILL FORWOOD — Nor are you. It is yourpolicy and you are walking away from it,Mr Theophanous. No wonder the minister hangs herhead. Are you trying to help or hinder her,Mr Theophanous?

The national competition policy review undertaken bythe Honourable Haddon Storey on behalf of theprevious government recommended a number of otherthings — the removal of the 8 per cent cap on generalliquor licences and, perhaps more importantly,removing the needs criteria that was anotherimpediment preventing entry into the liquor market.That was an important recommendation.

Despite the recommendations in the reports ofMr Storey, the former Public Bodies ReviewCommittee, and Mr Nieuwenhuysen in 1987 thegovernment decided in its wisdom to keep the 8 percent limit on packaged liquor licences. Why? Becausein Victoria today Coles and Woolworths have 40 percent of the packaged liquor sales.

You were the hero, Mr Theophanous. You should readthe speech you made on duopoly, market dominanceand market concentration. The opposition tried to keep

LIQUOR: LICENCES


in place and protect the 8 per cent limit on generallicenses as well. And the Labor Party committed itselfto going even further with the latest report. But now thegovernment has decided to renege on the commitmentmade to Victorians.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous — How do you figurethat out? Explain it.

Hon. BILL FORWOOD — I read the report.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous — Explain it to us,seriously.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Give themember the opportunity to try.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous interjected.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order,Mr Theophanous! You will have your opportunity later.

Hon. BILL FORWOOD — The government isabrogating the responsibilities of the office, there isabsolutely no doubt about it. That is apparent when onecompares what was in the leaked version that we gotwhich talks about the phasing out — —

Hon. T. C. Theophanous — What is he talkingabout?

Hon. M. R. Thomson — I don’t know what he istalking about.

Hon. BILL FORWOOD — The minister does notknow what I am talking about.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous — You are making it up.

Hon. BILL FORWOOD — No, I am not. Theopposition was fortunate enough to get some extracts ofthe document entitled ‘Review of the 8 per cent limit onliquor licence holdings’ last week, which wassubstantially before the government released thedocument this week, and I have read it and made somecomparisons. A lot of the material in the review is thesame, there is no doubt about that. However, the spinmeisters have gotten hold of it and where it says, forexample, in the leaked version:

Given the above conclusions, the review considers it wouldbe inappropriate to immediately abolish the 8 per cent limit.

The words have been changed now so that thatparagraph now reads:

Given the above conclusions, it would be in the public interestto retain the 8 per cent per cent limit until a suitable

alternative is developed that meets the government’sobjective …

Hon. T. C. Theophanous — What page are youreading from?

Hon. BILL FORWOOD — Page xii. Thegovernment is moving away from the commitment andit is trying to camouflage that with mealy-mouthedwords. The same thing applies to recommendationno. 1. In the extract it states:

While it would be inappropriate to immediately abolish the8 per cent limit, the government should seek alternativemeans to promote the viability of independent liquor storesand diversity in the market.

That is changed in the later version to:

The 8 per cent rule should not be removed until there is amechanism in place to ensure diversity in the marketplace.

Same concept, different words.


Hon. BILL FORWOOD — That is on page xii ofthe executive summary. There is no doubt that thedocument was done by an independent body, that it wasfinished in June, that it was with the minister, theminister’s advisers or the department in some sense for10 weeks, that in that period the government grappledwith how to deal with the breach of its commitment,and that in later stages, after the opposition received itsleak, the government decided that it would get the spindoctors onto it and change the words. As a result thegovernment has come up with this new version. I willquote some more from it later.

The government then shot out to see if it could get a bitof support for what it had done. Yesterday, as recordedin Hansard, the Minister for Small Business quotedextensively — six paragraphs — from the press releaseissued by the Liquor Stores Association of Victoria(LSAV). The press release said some quite nice thingsabout the minister and the process but the minister didnot read the paragraphs that she did not want to read.Again, it is selective reporting, and that is typical of theway the minister has behaved throughout this wholesaga. The minister did not read out the part that states:

The main recommendation … is fully supported by theLSAV, but only on condition that any replacementmechanism, if it can be found, must be at least as effective asthe 8 per cent rule in ensuring diversity and an assured rolefor small business in this industry …

‘A simple phase-out which removes the “8 per cent cap”would not be viewed as an acceptable mechanism,’ saidMr Wilkinson.

LIQUOR: LICENCES


The minister read the next sentence, which goes onabout consultation, but by her selective reporting of thepress release the minister highlights the very pointabout the way this whole process has been conducted.

If members go back to the original letter from thePremier dated 10 January this year they will see that itwas very detailed. Members can see the dilemmabetween keeping an election promise and finding a wayof doing away with the 8 per cent limit. The letterstates:

As you are also aware, our election policy committed theBracks government to the retention of the 8 per cent cap onholdings of packaged liquor licences and to reintroduce the8 per cent cap on holdings of on-premises licences.

The government will not do that. There is no way thegovernment will do that, will it? It will not. Thegovernment is not going to come in with legislation toreintroduce that cap, and the minister knows it. Ifhonourable members read the review document that hasbeen released they will see the whole way through thatthere is no intention of doing that. Paragraph C1 dealswith phase-out linked to the industry adjustmentprogram, and if members go further back into the bodyof the document and read the details they will find thateven where it says that perhaps a regional cap should beconsidered it goes on to qualify the recommendation.Members need to be very careful about that.

The executive summary of the report states:

… the office has found that the Victorian market forpackaged liquor is intensely competitive and offersconsumers a diverse range of shopping experiences since thechanges introduced by the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998.There is no significant barrier to entry for a business to obtaina packaged liquor licence. A comparison of interstateregulatory arrangements of packaged liquor licences revealedthat the Victorian regulatory framework is clearly the mostprogressive in Australia.

It is the most progressive in Australia, yet we kept the8 per cent cap. We can argue with the NationalCompetition Commission that there is absolutely noimpediment to competition, as the government’s ownreport says, by the use of the 8 per cent limit onpackaged liquor.

If members want to go further they can read the extractfrom the LSAV newsletter no. 2 of July 2000, whichcontains an extract from the Australian HotelsAssociation’s May update, which talks about theAHA’s conversation with the Prime Minister. It states:

The Prime Minister was advised that the end effect would beto benefit a couple of major retail chains —

Coles and Woolworths —

ultimately severely limiting consumer choice and severelydamaging many small businesses in the hospitality sector.

The Prime Minister emphasised that it was not the purpose ofnational competition policy to lead to those outcomes andindicated that his government could not support measures thatprovided market dominance to a few players and initiativesthat would damage small business.

The previous government dealt with this issue: it freedup the market but kept the 8 per cent cap. The LaborParty promised to keep the 8 per cent cap, it promisedto close the loopholes and it promised to wind back theabolition of the 8 per cent cap on general liquorlicences. We have a new inquiry under the nationalcompetition policy, and what has the government done?It has squibbed it.

Despite the fact that the Prime Minister is on the recordas saying that the intention is not to hand market shareto Coles and Woolworths; despite the fact that theprevious government did the review and abolished theneeds clause; despite the government’s own reportsaying there is no diminution in competition; anddespite Victoria’s having an intensely competitivemarket, the government is not prepared to come out asit should and say that the recommendation of this reportwas that the 8 per cent limit be abolished, but that itshould not be accepted. The government is not preparedto accept a report that says that the 8 per cent limitshould be abolished — as Nieuwenhuysen said; as thePublic Bodies Review Committee said; and as theStorey committee said — but that it will not do it in theinterests of regional and rural Victoria.

All the government had to do was follow what thePremier asked in his letter. He said:

The review will need to report early in the June quarter toprovide sufficient time to develop a government responseand, if necessary, to allow for legislation in the spring 2000sittings … I would appreciate a response by 11 February …

The intention was that this report would be done early,that it would be released, that the government wouldcome to this place and that it would find a mechanismto keep its promise to the people of Victoria.

That was the intention. What did the government doinstead? It received a report, panicked, hid it, doctoredit. Right? The government doctored it, there is nodoubt. It compared the words and doctored it and now itis trying to find ways of getting out of it.

There is no doubt the government should have releasedthe report for public consultation at the time, if that waswhat it wished to do, and made it clear it would keep itspromise. The livelihoods of little pubs and liquor storesare at stake. Does the minister want to go to the seven

LIQUOR: LICENCES


country towns where there are currently unlicensedColes or Woolworths stores and say, ‘Sorry, they aregoing to bring a liquor licence in here tomorrow.’? Didthe minister read the submission from Ritchies? It is inher own report. Ritchies said:

For the independent liquor stores of Kyneton and Wonthaggi,the 8 per cent rule provides some protection …. from themajor chains opening a liquor store. In the case of Wonthaggi,the only two packaged liquor stores in the town are RitchiesSupermarkets and Coalfield Cellars. Ritchies argued in itssubmission … that the licensing of the nearby Safewaysupermarket would have dire consequences for itssupermarket and the town:

We submit that if the Safeway store was subsequentlylicensed, the Ritchies store would be decimated.Employment would suffer, local suppliers would bereduced. Competition would suffer as would the size ofthe Ritchies store. We submit that two successfulbusinesses would be reduced to one in the town.

The minister should read the report. She should readwhat the Victorian Wine Industry Association says. Itsupports the 8 per cent limit. She should read what thedrug and alcohol foundation says. It supports the 8 percent limit. But what does she do? She ducks, runs forcover. She deserts her constituents. The people ofVictoria know that this is not the first time the ministerhas done so, and they are beginning to become moreaware of that. They know that when the Workcoverdebate was on she was nowhere to be seen. They knowthat when the Shop, Distributive and Allied EmployersAssociation made its claims against all themums-and-dads stores, the milk bars and the smallstores around rural and regional Victoria, she wasnowhere to be seen. They know that when the tobaccomatter arose it was handled by the Minister forHealth — and there was no reference to the minister.The minister admitted that in Parliament.

Hon. M. A. Birrell — She did not even get anappointment.

Hon. BILL FORWOOD — Right. That is justanother example of the way the minister wandersaround and meets people. She is nice — nice andineffectual. It is very sad.

At the moment there are 10 800 liquor licences inVictoria, of which 1290 are packaged liquor licencesand 1912 are general licences — pubs. What will it bewhen the government has finished with the report? Itwill be a betrayal of small business and a transfer ofmarket share to Coles and Woolworths. At the moment100 Coles and Woolworths stores are unlicensed. If the8 per cent rule is abolished they will get licensesstraightaway. Not only will small business bedecimated but the minister will demonstrate to

Victorians that her word is worthless, that it does notmatter what she says because at the end of the day sheis not prepared to keep her commitments.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! I call theMinister for Small Business.

Hon. M. R. THOMSON (Minister for SmallBusiness) — Thank you.

Hon. Bill Forwood — I thought you had lost yourvoice!

Hon. M. R. THOMSON — I have, and I apologiseto the Hansard staff. I would like to give a robustresponse but I am muted at the moment because of myvocal chords and I do not know how long my voice willhold out. I move as follows:

That all the words after ‘house’ be omitted with the view ofinserting in place thereof ‘congratulates the government onreleasing the review of the 8 per cent limit on packaged liquorlicences in light of its requirements to satisfy the NationalCompetition Council that maintaining an 8 per cent limitwould not run counter to competition policy, and also notesthat in meeting this election commitment the government willconsult widely with the industry’.

Because of the correspondence from the NationalCompetition Council the review was a necessary part ofmeeting the government’s election commitment on the8 per cent limit on packaged liquor licences. As I statedyesterday, if the opposition when in government hadbeen serious about looking after the small liquor stores,the small mixed grocery stores and the hotels, it wouldhave conducted a review in its period of office. It wouldhave come up with the response to the NCC. It failed todo so. Not only did it fail to do so, it failed to have evena policy position on the matter when it went to theelection.

I congratulate the Office of Regulation Reform on itsconduct of the review. The office consulted widely,and I will refer to those with whom it consulted shortly.

I welcome the report’s recommendations because theyreinforce the government’s capacity to ensure that the8 per cent loophole is closed in respect of generallicences. It will also enable the government to considera number of other options to help small businessoperators conserve their businesses. It must also berecognised that all who were involved in theconsultation process accepted that in the longer term the8 per cent situation would have to be looked at, andother measures may have to be considered to assure theprotection of small businesses in the industry.

Recommendation no. 1 of the report states:

LIQUOR: LICENCES


The 8 per cent rule should not be removed until a mechanismis in place to ensure diversity in the marketplace.

That indicates it may be possible to put in placealternatives to ensure that diversity is maintained. Thegovernment supports the retention of the 8 per cent rule.It also supports the notion that ongoing consultationwill occur in the industry to ensure that mechanisms arein place for the longer term — beyond this term ofgovernment — to protect diversity in the marketplace.

Recommendation no. 2 is the one I most welcome. Itstates:

The act be amended to require that the Director of LiquorLicensing to reject an application for a general licence if theapplicant would be unable to obtain a packaged liquor licenceon the grounds of section 23 …

That would close a loophole that has allowed people toobtain general licences when they have been sellingpackaged alcohol.


Hon. M. R. THOMSON — The government is notabolishing the 8 per cent. Recommendation no. 3 states:

The Minister for Small Business seeks the approval of thecommonwealth Minister for Employment, WorkplaceRelations and Small Business to expand the scope of theRetail Grocery Industry Code of Conduct and Ombudsmanscheme to include packaged liquor retailing.

That has been welcomed by the industry sector.Recommendation no. 4 states:

The Minister for Small Business instructs the CoordinatingCouncil on the Control of Liquor Abuse to consider whatimpact a possible replacement of the 8 per cent rule mighthave on the incidence of alcohol-related harm and to beginpreparation of a strategy for monitoring that.

As I said, in the longer term — not in the short tomedium term — the industry would like to look at othermechanisms beside the 8 per cent to protect diversity inthe marketplace, and the government is happy to godown that path with it. As I also said, the previouscoalition government did not act on the 8 per cent rule.It left it in a void because it expected to win an electionand could then do away with it. What else could it do?It was told it had to do it under National CompetitionPolicy, or forfeit.

We were not prepared to do that. We believe weprovide the most competitive marketplace in Australiafor the sale of liquor, and a review would demonstratethat. The review, which says we are competitive, states:

Regardless of any restrictive effect of the 8 per cent rule, theoffice has found that the Victorian market for packaged liquor

is intensely competitive and offers consumers a diverse rangeof shopping experiences since the changes introduced by theLiquor Control Reform Act 1998. There is no significantbarrier to entry for a business to obtain a packaged liquorlicence. A comparison of interstate regulatory arrangementsof packaged liquor licences revealed that the Victorianregulatory framework is clearly the most progressive inAustralia.

The National Competition Council says we are themost competitive marketplace and there is no restrictionto competition. The government is talking about closingthe loophole that allows people to get in through theback door. The review will enable the government to godown that path. It is one step in implementing thegovernment’s policy.

If the review had been unfavourable I would, asminister, have submitted it for consultation. Thegovernment has submitted it for consultation and iscontinuing to do so. Consultation on the report wasoriginally to be for 28 days, but the period ofconsultation is now six weeks. If the government hadnot supported the recommendations in the review Iwould have said so, but the government supports therecommendations.

It also supports and recognises the need for diversity inthe marketplace and ensuring small business has along-term role to play in the liquor industry. Thegovernment is ensuring that it puts a clear andcognisant case to the National Competition Council thatbacks its position. The review backs the government’sposition, which is that it is a competitive marketplaceand the 8 per cent rule does not inhibit that competition.

The Office of Regulation Reform conducted the reviewwith the advice and guidance of an expert referencegroup comprising Associate Professor David Johnsonfrom the Institute of Applied Economic and SocialResearch from the University of Melbourne, Mr JohnSweetman from the Victorian Employers Chamber ofCommerce and Industry and Dr Chee-Wah Cheah, aformer assistant director of policy at the Department ofTreasury and Finance.

Extensive consultations were held with the industryassociations and individual businesses, a half-dayworkshop was convened, a survey of consumers wasconducted, site visits were undertaken and case studieswere carried out on metropolitan and regional areas.Public submissions were also sought. The Office ofRegulation Reform examined the costs and benefits ofreform with particular regard to the interests ofconsumers, the effectiveness of protections under theTrade Practices Act, social welfare considerations,economic and regional development effects, andemployment and investment impacts.

LIQUOR: LICENCES


There was no secrecy about the review. As I have said,it involved consulting with over 25 key industry andcommunity organisations; attracting 16 writtensubmissions; convening a half-day workshop withrepresentatives of key interest groups; commissioning asurvey of 1000 liquor consumers across Victoria; andundertaking numerous site visits and case studies.

It will now consult for six weeks. We look forward tothe consultative process and the contributions smallretailers will make in that process. We also welcomethe support of the Liquor Stores Association of Victoriain the conduct of the review.

Hon. Bill Forwood — Who wrote the press release?

Hon. M. R. THOMSON — The association wroteit. I know you are disappointed, Mr Forwood. Thegovernment is meeting its commitments.

Hon. Bill Forwood interjected.

Hon. M. R. THOMSON — You are readingoptions that are available but not determined. Therecommendations are for the retention of the 8 per cent,strengthening it and closing the loophole. Industrygroups understand what is intended. They alsounderstand that in the long run the 8 per cent may haveto be examined.

Hon. Bill Forwood — How long is the long run?Next week?

Hon. M. R. THOMSON — I look forward to yoursupport when legislation is introduced to tighten theloophole. Mr Forwood should have learnt frompre-empting a report that was not the final report. Heshould not attempt to pre-empt this final report or thelegislation that will be introduced.

The government will meet its commitments to theelectorate and looks forward to the consultative process.The document went before a cabinet subcommittee toassess a time line for consultation to ensure that it waswidely agreed to. The report recommended 28 days.The subcommittee sought its extension to six weeks,which has been agreed to.

Hon. Bill Forwood — Was there an editingcommittee?

Hon. M. R. THOMSON — There was no editingcommittee. You do not necessarily know everything.You may think you do, but you do not.

The Australian Hotels Association discussions with thePrime Minister have not been concluded. The federal

government will get away with not conducting a reviewof the 8 per cent because the Bracks government hasconducted that review, and the review defends theposition of the 8 per cent.

Hon. Bill Forwood — The first recommendation isto phase it out.

Hon. M. R. THOMSON — It is not. The firstrecommendation is not a phase-out. Mr Forwoodshould read it in conjunction with recommendationno. 2 and understand what it says.

Hon. Bill Forwood interjected.

Hon. M. R. THOMSON — If Mr Forwood wantsto misinform and imply things that are not there, that ishis prerogative. The government will be following therecommendation for a consultative process, which weare about to enter into, to ensure that Victoria retainsthe 8 per cent and closes the loophole.

I welcome the report, the recommendations and theconsultative process. I thank the Office of RegulationReform for the way it conducted the review.

Hon. R. A. BEST (North Western) — On behalf ofthe National Party I support the motion. It has been theposition of the National Party to support the retention ofthe 8 per cent rule. Two documents were produced thatwere the precursors to the reform of the Liquor ControlAct in 1998. Recommendations have continually beenmade that would abolish the 8 per cent rule and it hasbeen argued that in meeting national competitionrequirements the government should take theopportunity to throw open the liquor market to providegreater competition in the liquor industry.

Following the review undertaken by the HonourableHaddon Storey in 1987 the following recommendationwas made at page 78:

The review recommends that the 8 per cent rule for generaland packaged liquor licences be removed from the act.

I am delighted that at that time coalition membersundertook considerable debate in the party room. Thethen minister took advice to resist the opportunity tocomply with the recommendations of the committeeand looked more widely at the impact on smallbusiness. Her approach provided a diverse, competitiveindustry, balancing the interests of small business withthe total liquor industry.

My background is that of a hotel operator, so my viewsare somewhat coloured. I do not mind admitting that.The sale of packaged liquor in supermarketsunquestionably led to price reductions. The practice of

LIQUOR: LICENCES


using packaged alcohol to market liquor as a loss leaderhas severely impacted on the hotel industry. Majorchains have approximately 80 per cent of the retailmarket. The question that must concern the governmentis: how far do we go when accessing nationalcompetition policy funds that require governments togauge the impact on the overall industry under review?I have major concerns about the way the liquor industryhas been exposed to national competition policy and theway major supermarkets are able to use their productrange to enjoy discounting liquor at an overall cost tothe liquor industry.

The circumstances in my home town provide asynopsis of the impact on the hospitality industry ofderegulation, which gives major supermarkets theopportunity to sell packaged liquor.

Unquestionably Victoria has an excellent, diversifiedhospitality industry with a range of restaurants, bars,cafes and bistros that allow for the sale andconsumption of liquor in the European style. Theprocess has evolved in a balanced and managed way.As a major regional centre, Bendigo has seen thegrowth of a range of cafe-style eating establishmentswith umbrellas, tables and chairs flowing onto itsstreets. Those developments have added to thecosmopolitan atmosphere of the community.

However, at the same time major supermarkets sellpackaged liquor. The Bendigo area has some 58 hotellicences, and the hotels perform a range of businessfunctions. Some have gaming machines, some havePubtabs and some have bistros. Some rely on the saleof packaged beer and some rely on bar sales. Theyundertake a range of functions.

Their ability to compete against supermarkets, whichhave a wider product range, is limited, particularlywhen those supermarkets are prepared to discount anduse packaged liquor as a loss leader. The hotel industryhas limited resilience when fighting the strident retailsector that is dominated by the supermarkets. TheAustralian Hotels Association estimates thatapproximately 90 per cent of Bendigo hotellicensees — about 58 licensees — are teetering on theedge and finding it hard to maintain their viability. Thelivelihoods and employment opportunities of some550 to 600 employees in the hospitality industry arethreatened because supermarkets use packaged liquoras a loss leader.

Some may argue, quite rightly, that consumers are thebeneficiaries, and that may be so. However, the casestudy in the minister’s report cites the example ofCastlemaine. People travel 35 kilometres to shop in

Bendigo because of the strong presence of the majorsupermarkets and their liquor outlets. Money istransferred from the smaller communities to the majorretailing centres such as Bendigo, and that impactsadversely on smaller communities. That situation canbe multiplied as one extends the network out ofBendigo. Many people from farming communities takethe opportunity to spend a day shopping in Bendigobecause of the strong retail presence of thesupermarkets.

Although one cannot criticise people for wanting tosave money, the competitive environment must bebalanced to reverse the adverse impact on smallbusinesses that try to eke out a living. Even in theBendigo area the hotel industry is teetering at the brink.Mums and dads are the prime owners and operators ofthe hotels, and many university students supplementtheir incomes by working in the industry.

Legislators must be conscious of the risks ofintroducing legislation that impacts on the viability ofenterprises and their opportunities to earn a living. Therecommendation of the previous reviews by both theall-party parliamentary Public Bodies ReviewCommittee and the review headed by HaddonStorey — which addressed the issue of nationalcompetition policy on the liquor industry in Victoria —was that the 8 per cent rule should be abolished. Thestrong commitment of coalition members, who wereprepared to look at the issue on a broader basis andbalance the views of the major supermarkets with theviews of business operators within the hospitalityindustry, led the former minister to reject the proposalto remove the 8 per cent. That led to a diversified andresponsible attitude to the sale of alcohol.

I also put on record the problem of alcohol abuse andmisuse. Governments have a responsibility to ensurethat they do not provide continued access that can leadto greater abuse and misuse.

Parliament should be conscious of the message it sendsto the community regarding road safety if it allowspackaged beer to be sold freely in milk bars, drive-inbottle shops, convenience stores and service stations.The industry should be aware that the selling of alcoholcreates some difficulties in the community. Parliamentshould be conscious of the legislation it enacts and mustensure there are checks and balances that encourageresponsible drinking and behaviour. It should not sendthe message that it condones the misuse and abuse ofalcohol.

I am disappointed at the ambiguous nature of the reporton the review of the 8 per cent limit on liquor licence

LIQUOR: LICENCES


holdings. I was particularly concerned when theMinister for Small Business said she was consideringalternatives to the 8 per cent rule because it gave theimpression that the government may alter the rulesapplying to supermarkets accessing liquor licences.Approximately 100 Coles and Woolworthssupermarkets in Victoria do not have liquor licences. Iam concerned that any watering down of the proposalwill lead to a compromise with further licences beinggranted, which may lead to more problems on our roadsand in the social behaviour of some people in thecommunity.

The National Party is unambiguous in its stance. Itwants the 8 per cent rule retained. It does not want awatering down of the provision to lead to milk bars,convenience stores and service stations obtaining liquorlicences, but at the same time it balances that view withthe belief that people in the hotel and restaurant sectorsshould enjoy a viable, vibrant industry and be able toearn a living from the sale and serving of packagedliquor.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Jika Jika) — Theopposition should be embarrassed by notice of motion 3because the Minister for Small Business clearly saidLabor government policy will be implemented.

Hon. Bill Forwood — She did not.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS — She said it wouldbe implemented. The Liberal Party can try to put a twiston that — the government has come to expect membersof the Liberal Party to twist the words of members ofthis place — but the minister was clear. She saidgovernment policy will be implemented. She referred tolong-term options. Mr Forwood should have taken thetrouble to read the report.

Hon. Bill Forwood — I read the report.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS — If Mr Forwoodhad read the report he would note that it refers to ‘thefollowing possible reform options’. That is after therecommendation that the 8 per cent rule should not beremoved.

Hon. Bill Forwood — It then says ‘until’.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS —Recommendation no. 1 states:

The 8 per cent rule should not be removed until there is amechanism in place to ensure diversity in the marketplace.

I do not know when such a mechanism would beavailable in the marketplace. I cannot envisage itoccurring for many years to come. I do not know

whether Mr Forwood can envisage a mechanism thatwill ensure diversity is retained in the marketplace, butit is clear the report will assist the government when itintroduces legislation to close the loophole the previousgovernment was not prepared to close.

Hon. B. C. Boardman — No, it doesn’t.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS — Of course it does.Recommendation no. 2 states in part:

The act be amended to require the Director of LiquorLicensing to reject an application for a general licence …

The opposition has been caught out. I accept whatMr Best said, that the former government rejected therecommendation of the Storey report, but once itbecame clear that there was a legal loophole thatallowed the expansion of liquor licence holdingsbeyond the 8 per cent the former government was notprepared to close that loophole. It allowed the extensionof holdings beyond the 8 per cent through the backdoor.

Members of the opposition are hypocrites. Mr Forwoodsays Coles and Woolworths have 40 per cent of themarket share, but they got to that level because of aloophole the Kennett government was not prepared toclose. The previous Minister for Small Business was amember of this chamber when time after time the thenopposition sought an assurance from the minister thatshe would close the legal loophole. On no occasion didshe ever say she was prepared to close that loophole.The only people who have said they will close theloophole are members of the Labor government.

Hon. Bill Forwood — You won’t do it.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS — That is exactlywhat will happen. It will occur. I look forward toMr Forwood eating his words and apologising to thegovernment when it occurs.

The impediment the review points out is that theobjections of the National Competition Council must beovercome. Even though there was no objection fromthe council regarding the Audit Act, the thengovernment rushed off to introduce competition byamending that act. But in this case the council hasraised an objection, which has to be dealt with, and thereview proposes a way of dealing with the objection byallowing the 8 per cent to stay. That is why thegovernment has accepted the recommendations of thereview. It makes it clear that the 8 per cent rule ought tostay.

ABSENCE OF MINISTER


It is also the case that the industry has welcomed theway the government has dealt with the issue and hassought to ensure that the National Competition Councilobjections do not lead to the removal of the 8 per centlimit.

Indeed, the minister has been congratulated for standingup for small business.

Hon. Bill Forwood — By whom?

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS — Peter Wilkinson,for a start.

Hon. Bill Forwood — Read the rest of what he said.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS — I am happy toread what he says:

We know that Minister Thomson is under enormous pressurefrom the National Competition Council … and to her credit,she has ensured small business a fair hearing.

That is what he said, Mr Forwood.

Hon. Bill Forwood — Read the next bit.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS — The motionbefore the house is a cheap trick on your part, becauseyou well know that the previous government was goingdown the track of selling small business down the linein relation to this issue, via the back door, and byallowing the legal loophole to remain you were nevergoing to do anything about it. You made that clear inthe house on countless occasions.

Debate interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.


ABSENCE OF MINISTER

The PRESIDENT — Order! I advise that theMinister for Small Business is absent from the housedue to illness.



Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra) — I refer theMinister for Industrial Relations to the economicimpact study that the minister has now promised intothe cost of the proposals made yesterday by herindustrial relations task force. Will the minister promiseto publish the report of the economic impact study andallow public comment on it before reaching

conclusions on the task force’s controversialrecommendations?

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for IndustrialRelations) — I do not believe the recommendations ofthe industrial relations task force are controversial at all.The government will undertake an economic impactstudy on the recommendations that the task force hasput to it. The economic impact statement will look atthe employment and economic costs of therecommendations as set out. The government will makean assessment on those recommendations afterreceiving that statement and will respond to therecommendations once they have been received.

Electricity: supply

Hon. E. C. CARBINES (Geelong) — In contrast tothe former government, which displayed little or nointerest in the reliability of electricity supply in favourof grand privatisation, will the Minister for Energy andResources outline to the house what the Bracksgovernment has done to improve the security andreliability of supply following power shortages earlierthis year?

Hon. C. C. BROAD (Minister for Energy andResources) — Barely three months after assumingoffice the Bracks government was confronted withinterruptions to supply and restrictions brought aboutby — —


The PRESIDENT — Order! The house has not gotoff to a good start. I suggest the house allow theminister to be heard in silence.

Hon. C. C. BROAD — The interruptions werebrought about by, as is well known to members of thisplace, hot weather in Victoria, South Australia and NewSouth Wales, mechanical breakdowns in powergenerators, and industrial action which predated theelection.


The PRESIDENT — Order! Question time will beassisted if once the question is asked the minister isallowed to respond so that all honourable members canhear her answer.

Hon. C. C. BROAD — In the wake of that eventthe government appointed a task force, which I chaired,to carry out a thorough review of those events. The taskforce examined not only what can be done to bettermanage any future electricity shortages, but also



Victoria’s future electricity demands and how they canbe best met. The outcomes of the task force review arecontained in a new report released a short time ago bythe Premier.

The previous coalition government abrogated itsresponsibilities and did little to ensure, as part of itsprivatisation program and the establishment of anational market, that electricity was treated as anessential service following privatisation. The packageof measures contained in the review is aimed at givingVictoria a more secure and reliable electricity supplysystem. Victoria has to face the reality that it is part ofthe national electricity market and that the governmentdoes not have sole jurisdiction over the legal andregulatory arrangements that apply in that market.

However, the existing national structures needsubstantial improvement to ensure they focus more onreliability, give more recognition to government andcommunity concerns, and place greater duties ofdisclosure and accountability on all participants in thatmarket. To that end, Victoria will seek to define withother states and territories an appropriate ongoing rolefor governments, and to ensure that the nationalelectricity code clearly outlines the roles andresponsibilities of all market participants.

Other key actions include meeting the state’s short-termpeak demands, ensuring there are sufficient incentivesin the market to provide ongoing, timely and efficientinvestment in facilities to meet average growth indemand, and making arrangements to better inform thecommunity about potential shortfalls in supply.

The most immediate issue facing Victoria is its abilityto meet extreme peaks in demand. It is important topoint out that electricity load in Victoria increases byaround 15 per cent for only 1 per cent of the time in theyear, and this is almost entirely due to airconditioning.

That situation was clear to the previous government. Itis surprising it took no action whatsoever to doanything about it. As a result of the work over the pastfew months the task force has established that the mostefficient and effective means of meeting those extremesis through demand-side responses such as the voluntaryreduction of load for commercial gain, which thegovernment believes there is a great deal of scope forthe market to engage in.

Today together with the Premier I launched the first in aseries of television and print advertisements developedby the Sustainable Energy Authority to encourage moreefficient use of electricity. Unlike the previousgovernment, the government will implement those

recommendations as a matter of the highest priority inthe interests of all Victorians.

Answer ordered to be considered next day on motion ofHon. PHILIP DAVIS (Gippsland).


Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra) — I refer theMinister for Industrial Relations to the economicimpact study that the minister is planning tocommission prior to the recommendations of her taskforce which she has said will not be made public beforedecisions are made. Will the consultant who does theeconomic impact study be chosen following a publictender process or will the minister appoint anotherpro-Labor mate to do the job?

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for IndustrialRelations) — The tender has already gone out. It isbeing administered through Industrial RelationsVictoria.


Hon. D. G. HADDEN (Ballarat) — I refer theMinister for Industrial Relations to researchcommissioned by the independent industrial relationstask force entitled ‘Earnings, employment benefits andindustrial coverage in Victoria’, and ask what theresearch revealed about Victorian workers with noaward protection who are covered only by schedule 1Aof the Workplace Relations Act.

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for IndustrialRelations) — The research commissioned by theindependent task force contained in the AustralianCouncil for Industrial Relations Research and Trainingreport entitled ‘Earnings, Employment Benefits andIndustrial Coverage in Victoria’ was critical. The datafor the research was collected from a survey of900 randomly selected employers across the state. Thesurvey had the support of the Victorian EmployersChamber of Commerce and Industry (VECCI) and theAustralian Industry Group (AIG), which encouragedtheir membership to participate in the research.

Despite the previous government’s dismantling of thestate industrial relations system and abolishing of stateawards, no research whatsoever has been conducted byit or by the federal Minister for Employment,Workplace Relations and Small Business, Peter Reith,into what happened to those Victorian workers whenthe changes took place. No figures have been availablefor the past eight years for the number of thoseVictorian workers covered by schedule 1A who haveremained without award protection. The Liberals in



Victoria and Mr Reith were simply not interested inwhat happened to those ordinary Victorians. They didnot want to know and did not care about what happenedto them, and they were not interested in how theirpolicies impacted on them.

The research that has been commissioned by the taskforce with the support of VECCI and AIG has come upwith some hard facts. Approximately561 000 employees have no award protection inVictoria; they have only the minimum conditions ofemployment covered under schedule 1A of theWorkplace Relations Act. Taking into account what theAustralian Bureau of Statistics does with its statistics,200 000 of those 560 000-odd Victorians would besenior managers or professional people who do notnormally require employment protection, leaving a totalof 360 000 Victorians who have been left on their ownwith no award protection!

The research shows that four major industries arecovered by those 360 000 workers: 23 per cent areemployed in property and business services, usually asclerical workers, although no research has beenavailable before today on what has happened to them;13 per cent are employed in the construction area,mainly in small residential construction; 12 per cent areemployed in retail as small business workers and shopassistants; and 14 per cent are employed in theagricultural area, mainly as farmhands. I am sure thelast category would be of interest to the National Party,because those people work in their electorates. Thereport expressed particular concern about the fact thatworkers in the non-metropolitan area — that is,regional and rural workers — tend to be the lowest paidworkers in Victoria. Thirty per cent — —

Hon. K. M. Smith — On a point of order,Mr President, the minister is not answering thequestion; she is debating it. I ask you to bring her backto answering the question.

Hon. M. M. GOULD — That is not a point oforder.

The PRESIDENT — Order! As I have said in thehouse before, it is extraordinarily difficult to ascertainwhether a member is answering a question or debatingan issue, and the house has always taken a liberalattitude to that. I do not uphold the point of order, but Iam sure the minister is coming to the end of her answer.

Hon. M. M. GOULD — The research was critical.It showed that 30 per cent of non-metropolitan workersearn less than $12 per hour. The house is aware that thegovernment is concerned about how it can best address

the areas of disadvantage to workers, and it will belooking in particular for support from the NationalParty to ensure that, in assessing its views on therecommendations, it looks after all Victorians,especially those in the regional and rural areas.

Snowy River

Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern) — I refer theMinister for Energy and Resources in her capacity aslead minister in the negotiations with New South Waleson the Snowy River to the government’s commitmentto return 28 per cent flows to the Snowy River — acommitment that underpins the government’s veryexistence. Is the minister aware of a proposal by theNew South Wales government to commission a studyto:

… assess the total water resource that can be economicallyrecovered over a relatively long period (say 25 years).

Does that time frame not put paid to the government’sundertaking to restore flows to the Snowy within thelife of this Parliament and further demonstrate that theVictorian government is not being taken seriously bythe New South Wales minister, Mr Della Bosca, andthe New South Wales Labor government?

Hon. C. C. BROAD (Minister for Energy andResources) — The honourable member referred to theimportant commitment made by the Bracksgovernment to the Victorian people at the last electionto restore 28 per cent of average natural flows to theSnowy River. I have been charged with theresponsibility for negotiating with the commonwealthand New South Wales governments on thatcommitment.

I do not accept the assertion of the honourable memberthat the many studies and investigations, some of whichhave been completed and some of which are still underway, in Victoria, New South Wales and with thecommonwealth on available water savings and possiblefinancing arrangements for the private and publicsectors that may contribute to achieving thatcommitment, put paid in any shape or form to thegovernment’s commitment. I expect that before muchlonger it will be possible for all three governments toindicate what it has been possible to achieve throughthose negotiations.

Better Pools program

Hon. KAYE DARVENIZA (Melbourne West) —Will the Minister for Sport and Recreation inform thehouse how the government is ensuring that all



Victorians are benefiting from the government’scommitment to better pools for all Victorians?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Sport andRecreation) — The Honourable Bill Forwood may beinterested in my answer because he has recently raisedissues about sports funding. The Better Pools aquaticfunding program was developed in response to thevolume of aquatic-based project applications receivedby Sport and Recreation Victoria through directapplications to the Community Support Fund andspecific issues identified at the 1999 Sport andRecreation Victoria rural pools conference.

I will reinforce the objectives of the Better Poolsprogram for the benefit of the opposition. It aims toencourage a planned approach to the development ofaquatic leisure facilities across Victoria; to develop orredevelop aquatic facilities to increase the range of andaccess to aquatic leisure facilities; and to upgradeexisting facilities to comply with occupational healthand safety and other legislative requirements.

The funds for the program were allocated from theCommunity Support Fund and administered by Sportand Recreation Victoria. In July almost $11 million wasallocated to projects throughout Victoria over twofinancial years. A total of 23 local governmentauthorities were funded. In some instances, such as theMildura Rural City Council and the Murrindindi ShireCouncil, a number of pools were upgraded.

Allocations to the metropolitan area included $1 millionto the City of Yarra to upgrade its pool infrastructureand $1.5 million to the City of Knox to upgrade theKnox Leisure Works.

A highlight of the funding, which may be appreciatedby National Party members, was to provide assistanceto aquatic centres in three significant regional centres.That included $2.5 million to Wangaratta andWarrnambool councils and $1.8 million to the RuralCity of Swan Hill. Those developments will giveresidents access to indoor aquatic centres, enhance theirinvolvement in learn-to-swim and water-safetyprograms, fitness activities, family recreation andcompetition swimming opportunities on a year-roundbasis.

Geological Survey: appointment

Hon. PHILIP DAVIS (Gippsland) — Further to theissue I raised during the adjournment debate last nightconcerning the targeted retrenchment of the manager ofGeological Survey in the Minerals and PetroleumDivision of the Department of Natural Resources andEnvironment, can the Minister for Energy and

Resources confirm that she received representationsfrom the Victorian Chamber of Mines which, shewould have the house believe, were ignored?

However, the minister did address an email that wasreleased to me under freedom of information. Theemail, dated 11 January, was from the relevant officerof the department to the acting secretary of theDepartment of Natural Resources and Environmentseeking direction as a result of advice that:

… it is in the minister’s office.

Will the minister advise how that can be consistent withher response on 8 December last, which states:

… it is not my intention to intervene to change decisions ofthat nature by the department.

Will the minister advise who is not telling the truth?

Hon. C. C. BROAD (Minister for Energy andResources) — The honourable member has referred toMr Tom Dickson being targeted. If he was targeted, as Ihave previously told the house, he was targeted underthe previous government and certainly the advice madeavailable to me on taking responsibility for the portfoliofrom the then head of department, Mr Michael Taylor,was that the decision not to renew Mr Dickson’scontract had been made by the previous government.

I shall correct another reference in the honourablemember’s question. As I have previously told thehouse, I did not ignore the representations by theVictorian Chamber of Mines on this matter. Given thatMr Dickson and other such contractors are employedby the head of the department and not by the minister, Idid what I considered to be the appropriate thing. Iraised the matter with the then head of the department,who advised me what was involved. As I havepreviously said, I accepted his explanation.

In relation to the emails the honourable member hasobtained under freedom of information relating tocertain matters to do with the minister, I havepreviously told the house that the emails between thoseofficers were ill informed.


Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS (Jika Jika) — Further tothe earlier answer by the Minister for IndustrialRelations about research conducted by the industrialrelations task force, what does the research show aboutthe level of wages and conditions of Victorianemployees compared with other states and nationally?



Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for IndustrialRelations) — I am concerned about the findingsfollowing the research conducted by the industrialrelations task force, which compare the proportion ofthe Victorian work force on low wages with employeesin New South Wales and the rest of Australia.

In Victoria the number of people who earnt less than$12 an hour and who are therefore employed on lowwages totals 24 per cent of the work force. Thatcompares with 19 per cent for New South Wales and21 per cent throughout Australia. The study shows that10 per cent of Victorians earn less than $10 an hour.Eight per cent of New South Wales workers and 9 percent throughout Australia earn that amount.Unfortunately, Victorian workers are not onlydisadvantaged in the wages they receive but also intheir employment conditions.

Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition was reported assaying he was not enthusiastic about giving the unionsanother leg up, to use his expression, when it came toconsidering industrial relations reforms. The Leader ofthe Opposition’s comments ignore the fact that theresearch has found that most of the 360 000 workers Iwas referring to are not covered by unions. They do nothave the protection of unions.


Hon. M. M. GOULD — They do not have theprotection of federal awards as do the other two-thirdsof the Victorian working population. This is not aboutlooking after the unions. This government is concernedabout looking after the Victorian workers who are onsuch low rates of pay.

I urge members of both the Liberal and National partiesnot to play a negative political role and instead suggestthat we work together to ensure that Victorian workersare looked after and that we actually grow the whole ofthe state for all Victorians, not just a select few.

World Economic Forum

Hon. B. C. BOARDMAN (Chelsea) — Can theMinister for Youth Affairs detail to the house whataction he has taken to protect Victoria’s youth frombeing exploited and misled by the S11 group intoparticipating in a potentially violent andconfrontationist demonstration at the upcoming WorldEconomic Forum?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for YouthAffairs) — I thank the honourable member for hisquestion. Although the member of the opposition likesto use the term ‘youth’ generically, he should use it

more specifically. That was one of the difficulties whenthe opposition considered youth as youth.


Hon. J. M. MADDEN — Members of theopposition use it as a generic term, not appreciating thatthe term ‘youth’ can refer to anybody between 15 and25 years of age. Of course, there will be different layersbased on what those people do and their responsibilitiesand liberties. As my ministerial colleagues in the otherplace have mentioned on a number of occasions, thegovernment expects young people to be at school, andthat is where they should be if they are of school age.

If they are in a different age group or from differentbackgrounds they have many opportunities to expressthemselves in a number of ways. When honourablemembers opposite next use the term ‘youth’, they mightbe more specific about the age groups and the culturaldiversity. It is not a homogenised group. The oppositionshould appreciate that and if it wants to refer to aparticular demographic within youth it should bespecific.

Hon. D. McL. Davis — On a point of order,Mr President, that answer was not in any wayresponsive to the question. The question was veryspecifically about the World Economic Forum andwhat the minister has done. The minister tried to debatethe definition of youth.

The PRESIDENT — Order! I find that the answerwas not responsive to the question. Whether theminister wants to add anything to what he said is amatter for the minister.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN — I believe I responded tothat matter and to other comments made by myministerial colleagues and in doing so I believe I haveresponded to the question.

An Opposition Member — Giraffes have smallbrains.

Hon. G. D. Romanes — On a point of order, I justheard — —


The PRESIDENT — Order! The minister answeredthe question as far as he was prepared to do so. Isuggest he stop now. The Honourable GlenyysRomanes was called to ask a question but she has apoint of order.



Hon. G. D. Romanes — On a point of order,Mr President, I have just heard the Opposition Whip,the Honourable Ken Smith, make a reference to theMinister for Youth Affairs, the Honourable JustinMadden, along the lines of ‘Giraffes have small brains’.I consider that to be an affront to the minister and I askthe Honourable Ken Smith to withdraw that remark.

The PRESIDENT — Order! The rules of the houseare quite clear in relation to those sorts of remarks.When the member is in the chamber it is up to themember to take the objection.


The PRESIDENT — Order! This is not a newissue.


The PRESIDENT — Order! If the minister hadtaken objection to it I would have asked for thecomment to be withdrawn. It is his call.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous — He might not haveheard it.

Hon. C. C. Broad — So reflections on physicalappearance are now allowed in this chamber?

The PRESIDENT — Order! No, they are not. Theminister is missing the point: if the Minister for YouthAffairs did not hear what was said or was absent fromthe chamber, another member can take the objection. Ifthe point the Honourable Glenyys Romanes is making,is that the minister did not hear, I am happy to entertainthe point of order. The rules are quite clear.

Hon. J. M. Madden — On the point of order,Mr President, I heard only part of that but if that waswhat was said I do take exception to it.

Hon. Bill Forwood — On the point of order,Mr President, it was not Mr Smith, it was I who said it,and I am happy to withdraw.

Hon. Kaye Darveniza — On a point of order,Mr President, I just saw Mr Ken Smith make a veryoffensive gesture across the room. Not only does theopposition make a verbal affront to our ministers butMr Smith made a very offensive gesture across thechamber and I take exception to that.


The PRESIDENT — Order! All I can do is note thecomments of the member. There is no basis on which Ican ask for an alleged gesture to be withdrawn.

Students: sport participation

Hon. G. D. ROMANES (Melbourne) — In light ofthe 1993 Moneghetti report, which recommendedminimum levels of participation in school sport, willthe Minister for Sport and Recreation inform the houseof what steps the government is taking to meet theparticipation targets in Victorian schools?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Sport andRecreation) — I thank the honourable member for herquestion. As a curriculum-based activity, sport inschools is the province of the Minister for Education.However, Sport and Recreation Victoria works inpartnership with the Department of Education,Employment and Training to achieve the government’spolicy initiatives on sport in schools. The two agencieshave recently concluded a three-year memorandum ofunderstanding to establish closer school and communitylinks. The partnership has developed a resource bookletfor schools which will assist them to improve thequality of sport in schools through closer links withlocal sporting clubs. My portfolio will continue topromote closer links between schools, localgovernment and community organisations.

In 1999–2000 over $150 000 was directed through statesporting associations to a range of sports initiativesaimed at encouraging school-age children to participatein sport. The sports included indoor cricket, gymnastics,golf, lacrosse, handball, athletics, callisthenics, rowing,skiing, and yachting.

Other relevant Sport and Recreation Victoria initiativesinclude support for the employment of over 30 sportdevelopment officers in state sporting associations toconduct school clinics and teacher in-servicing, and tostage sporting events to promote the benefits of sport toschool children.

Sport and Recreation Victoria also supports the ongoingdevelopment of the Active Australia Schools Network,a network of schools committed to supporting andpromoting sport and physical activity.

The government is looking forward to the conclusion ofa review into public education entitled ‘Publiceducation — the next generation’, which has receivedhundreds of submissions. One of the most appreciatedelements of the submissions is that none has sought anyreduction in the level of sport or physical education inschools. The government therefore remains committedto increasing sport, physical activity and physicaleducation in schools to the level recommended in the1993 Moneghetti report. I will continue to work in



partnership with the Minister for Education to achievethat.


Second reading


That this bill be now read a second time.

Mr President, as honourable members may recall, theConstitution (Reform) Bill was introduced into theLegislative Assembly last sittings. The primaryobjectives of that bill were to:

reform this house;

end the ability of this house to block supply; and

establish a fixed four-year term of Parliament.

As members may also recall, that bill lay over to allowfor public comment and consultation.

As a result of receiving that comment on the bill andfollowing consultation with a number of persons,including the Independent members of the other houseand the non-government parties, the government hasdecided to alter some of the proposals in the reform billand to replace that bill with two bills — the bill beforethe house and the Constitution (ProportionalRepresentation) Bill.

The present bill deals with three issues of parliamentaryreform:

the term of Parliament;

the duration of the Legislative Council;

ending the ability of the Legislative Council to blocksupply.

Term of Parliament

The provisions in this bill concerning the term ofParliament are substantially the same as those in thereform bill. As members will be aware, the currentposition is that the Assembly expires four years after itsfirst sitting day. However, the Governor is empoweredto dissolve the Assembly in certain circumstances:

three years have expired;

a supply bill has been rejected;

a bill of special importance under section 66 is twicerejected by this house; or

a vote of no confidence has been passed by theAssembly.

The bill before the house, for the reasons detailed in thesecond-reading speech of the reform bill, will ensurethat the following principle is put in place — aParliament elected for four years will serve for fouryears unless the government has lost the confidence ofthe lower house.

This will be achieved by providing that the only groundupon which His Excellency can dissolve the Assemblyis if a resolution is passed by the Assembly expressingno confidence in the Premier and ministers. In theabsence of such a resolution, the Parliament will run forits full term of four years.

This bill, like the reform bill, also ensures that thefour-year term commences not from the first sitting dayof Parliament but from the date of the general election.As a result of these measures the gap between generalelections will always be, unless there is a vote of noconfidence, four years plus the election period — whichwill be between 25 and 58 days.

These provisions will operate from the next Parliament.

Duration of the Legislative Council

As members will be aware, currently the term ofmembers of this house is equal to two terms of theLegislative Assembly. This bill will, however, reducethe term of legislative councillors to a term equal to theterm of the Legislative Assembly.

Members will note that these provisions will operatefrom the next election and, for that purpose, the termsof all members of the Legislative Council will ceasewhen the current Assembly expires or is dissolved.

As members will appreciate, this bill is designed tooperate in conjunction with the Constitution(Proportional Representation) Bill — which is currentlybefore the other house. Should the passage of that billbe delayed whilst this bill is passed, the result will be,from the next election, that each of the 22 provinces isto return two members. As The Constitution ActAmendment Act provisions are not applicable to suchelections, provisions to enable such elections to beconducted are included in the bill. These provisions arebased on provisions in the Local Government Act.



Supply

Mr President, the reform bill introduced provisions toend the ability of the Legislative Council to blocksupply by providing that annual appropriation bills areto be presented for assent once passed by theLegislative Assembly. Following concerns that this willdeprive this house of its ability, as a house of review, todebate and comment on supply bills, the bill before thehouse has adopted the approach adopted in New SouthWales and in the United Kingdom. This approachallows the Legislative Council to consider and debateannual appropriation bills, but provides that should theCouncil reject or fail to pass such a bill within onemonth of it being passed by the Assembly, the annualappropriation bill must be presented for assent.

Mr President, the issues in this bill represent part of apackage of major constitutional reforms — reformswhich have been long sought by the people of Victoriaand which deserve speedy passage through thisParliament.

I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. M. A. BIRRELL(East Yarra).


That the debate be adjourned until later this day.

The bill has been before Parliament for several monthsnow. It has been subject to extensive debate betweenthe parties and within the community, and bothopposition parties have clearly outlined their decisionsin the Assembly and in the media. There can be nocredible argument that there has been insufficient timefor any members of the house to understand the intentand details of the bill or the Liberal Party’s position onthe bill. The Liberal Party has even gone so far as toproduce a leaflet stating its position. It is thereforeimpossible to believe that the bill needs to be laid overfor the opposition to form its view.

Numerous newspapers articles have been published.Mr Birrell has been quoted in the Ballarat Courier,there have been articles in the Warrnambool Standardand a number of comments have been made over theairways. There have been articles in the Border-Mail —Mr Baxter has been very busy on this piece oflegislation — and articles in the Shepparton News.There have been articles in the local Chelseanewspaper.

The opposition’s argument for delay in debating the billtherefore reflects convention but ignores recentprecedents. On at least two occasions when ingovernment the Honourable Roger Hallam used thecoalition’s parliamentary majority to bring on debatesthis way — back in 1993 and 1997 on the AnnualLeave Payments (Amendment) Bill and the Audit(Amendment) Bill — so it was interesting that hedenied leave for the second reading of the billyesterday. The government believes the opposition’sactions on this bill are not intended to delay the bill; it isdoing so only because it is unwilling to debate thereduction of the period of the terms of the upper housemembers. I therefore urge honourable members tosupport the adjournment of the bill until later this day.

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra) — I move asan amendment:

That the words ‘later this day’ be omitted with the view ofinserting in place thereof the expression ‘Wednesday,20 September 2000’.

In moving that amendment I make it clear that theopposition seeks the normal two-week adjournment forthe bill. In practice that would mean the oppositionwould be debating the bill in the next sitting week ofParliament, which will follow the break that has beenorganised for all Parliaments around the OlympicGames. In other words, in terms of sitting daysParliament would be debating the bill on the next sittingday.

The opposition makes that suggestion on the basis ofthe long-established practice of Liberal, Labor andcoalition governments that major legislation iscommonly adjourned for two weeks. Indeed, not onlycommonly adjourned for two weeks in the LegislativeCouncil but commonly adjourned for two weeks in theLegislative Assembly. Surprise, surprise, these bills inall their variations have been adjourned for two weeksin the Legislative Assembly. I stress ‘in all theirvariations’, because there has been something of amoving feast in terms of the number of bills thegovernment introduced. From memory — I may bewrong — it introduced one bill and then did not bring iton for debate in the Legislative Assembly; then itintroduced another bill that was radically different fromthe first bill and also did not bring it on for debate. Itthen introduced two bills that were similar to the secondbill but nevertheless had some changes, and then after aperiod of at least two weeks brought them on for debatein the Legislative Assembly.

This bill has been passed through the LegislativeAssembly, but its partner bill is still to be debated bythe Legislative Assembly. This is an appalling example



of the hypocrisy of the government’s stance, becausethat bill is being guillotined through the LegislativeAssembly, a procedure that is possible only through theALP’s use of its numbers and two of the Independents.

Hon. C. C. Broad interjected.

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL — As to Minister Broad’scustomary inaccurate interjection, no, our side did notagree to it. How then could there have been a vote on it,Minister, which there was? And there wasdisagreement because the Liberal Party believed thereshould have been a longer period to debate this matterin the Legislative Assembly.

It is without precedent in the history of the LegislativeCouncil since the Second World War — if there is aprecedent I am happy to hear of it — that a bill toamend of the constitution of the state of Victoria will bedebated in the Legislative Council on the day after itwas introduced. I cannot think of any occasion when aconstitutional alteration sought by the government ofthe day has been rammed through on the day after itwas introduced. The reality is that there is commonlyby agreement a two-week adjournment.

Hon. M. M. Gould interjected.

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL — I did not suggest there isa guillotine. The practice of this house, regardless ofwho controls the numbers, is that there is agreementthat there are adjournments when they are sought.Otherwise we would have the same codified rules ofpractice for running this house as the LegislativeAssembly has, and thank God we do not have them inthis house. When something as significant as analteration of the state constitution is being dealt withand the opposition — in this case both oppositionparties — seeks an adjournment of debate for twoweeks, it relies on the government of the day agreeingto such an adjournment.

It is even more important with a bill that amends theconstitution than with other significant bills. Mycolleague the Leader of the National Party said lastweek that one should never take for granted that a billintroduced in the house on one day can simply bepassed through the house on that day. On occasions itmay be done by agreement because the bill is minor ortrivial or, as was commonly the case when I was lastthe Leader of the Opposition, because the governmentof the day said the bill was urgent and there was somepressing reason of human safety or business conductthat necessitated proposed legislation being quicklypassed. On all occasions we facilitated the passage ofthe bill. We have passed bills through both houses of

Parliament within 12 hours on some occasions becauseparty politics means nothing if protection of the publicinterest is at stake.

All that is done in the spirit of recognising that if a billis not urgent for reasons of public safety or commercialconsideration, if it is controversial — which this billis — or if it does something of major import, such asamending the state constitution, there will be atwo-week adjournment. That is logical.

I expect Mr Theophanous is a person who will speakagainst the motion. In anticipation I remind him of hisstrong support for the adjournment of bills, in particularI urge him to read Hansard of 3 December 1997, and Ialso ask his colleagues to do so. If Mr Theophanous isupset about adjourning bills for two weeks it flies in theface of his comments on that day and indeed hiscomments peppered throughout his surprisingly longtime in this place.


Hon. M. A. BIRRELL — Mr Theophanous, I donot have anything to admire of you other than the factthat you are a survivor. Mr Theophanous on3 December 1997, as recorded at page 878 of Hansard,moved that the bill before the house be adjourned andsaid:

The debate should be adjourned until 1 September 1998.

He sought an adjournment of about nine months.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous — And don’t you wishyou had done it now!

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL — He had his reasons fordoing so. That is the mark of the difference in thepolitics of the debate at the time. I hope neither he noranyone else suggests that it is not the right of theopposition parties to adjourn bills, that there is somekind of inherent right of the government to bring a billon for debate within 24 hours of its being introducedinto this house, that there is some capacity for thegovernment morally to demand that a bill be debatedimmediately. If there is any practice or precedent it isthat a two-week adjournment is normal when someonein the chamber, usually because it is the conclusion ofhis or her political party but not necessarily so, says, ‘Ineed more time’. Mr Theophanous is recorded atpage 880 of Hansard of 3 December 1997 as saying:

The adjournment period that is being proposed between thedelivery of the minister’s second-reading speech and thesecond-reading debate is an insult to all those people. Itallows inadequate time to consider the issues and debate the



matter thoroughly. For those reasons the opposition believes itought to be delayed.

That was the view of the Labor Party arguing foradjournments when in opposition, yet it seeks to arguethat the Liberal Party has no similar right to argue foradjournments when in opposition.

The bill amends the state constitution. It seeks topermanently alter the constitutional and electoralstructure of the state and to permanently alter theparliamentary system itself. There can be no moreimportant subject for debate than altering the structureof the Parliament in some way or another, be it thelower house or the upper house, and there can be nomore important issue than governments altering theelectoral system, which the bill seeks to do. It is not amatter of whether the opposition agrees or disagreeswith the bill, it is a matter of whether members of theopposition should be allowed to have the normal twoweeks.

I look forward to the extra public scrutiny of the bill.Far from what the Labor Party suggests — that theopposition members do not want to debate the bill —we are looking forward to debating it. We areparticularly looking forward to more and moreVictorians knowing what is in the bill, because it hasbeen a deliberate tactic of the government not to consulton the proposed legislation, not to do what it says it willdo on all key issues: to hold regional forums, put outdiscussion papers, pamphlets, web sites and so on.None of that has been available for this. We have notseen a pamphlet, a web site flickering on our screensabout what the government wants to do, a hot line orfooty personalities promoting this one! The governmentsaid, ‘No, we would like to keep this one pretty quietthanks, because this is a bill for the true believers’.

We are more than happy to have the public know whatis in the bill. We want every member of the public toknow what Labor is up to, to know about every aspectof the legislation, every single aspect of it. As more andmore people see it more and more people will knowwhat it is about — it is a grab for power. Personally, Iwas absolutely delighted to hear of the government’sintention to persist with this issue. I look forward to it.

Over the coming weeks members of the opposition willcontinue to do what they have been doing over the pastfew weeks — that is, making sure people get to knowthe bill. Although the government does not want toconsult on it, we do. We look forward to the brief,normal adjournment to allow further public scrutiny ofLabor’s plans.

Hon. C. C. Broad interjected.

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL — That was anotherunhelpful interjection from the minister. If you areworried about the Olympic Games, Minister, theopposition is happy for you to extend the time further.If the government is worried that the media will not beable to focus on the issue during the Olympic Games,we are happy to give it more time. Every person whounderstands what the government is up to changes theirattitude towards the government because people do notlike a naked grab for power. They do not like anattempt by the government to try to stack the books.

I can understand why the government does not want thepublic to be consulted via the normal consultationprocess. I can understand why it does not want themedia to report this issue day after day, but oppositionmembers will facilitate that. We have no doubt aboutthe public being involved. People can learn about thetrue Labor motive. Over the next few weeks oppositionmembers actively hope the public will participate andtake up the minister’s suggestion. If they need moretime to participate we are happy to support thegovernment’s adjourning the issue for an even longertime.

Hon. R. M. HALLAM (Western) — I support thestandard procedures and protocols in the chamber, and Iwill outline why the National Party will insist, so far asit can, on having the bill subjected to the standardpractice of two weeks layover in the chamber beforebeing debated.

At the outset I point out that the circumstances todayare precisely why I chose to put the government onnotice. Although the opposition parties were preparedto accommodate the government’s business program,that was not to be taken as an indication that on everyoccasion it would simply roll over and allow issues ofimportance to be brought into the house and debatedimmediately.


Hon. R. M. HALLAM — I heard the aside fromthe Honourable Theo Theophanous that the bill is notbeing brought in one day with the governmentexpecting it to be debated the next day. That isinteresting, because if I had not refused leave yesterdaythat is precisely what would have happened. Thegovernment is saying to the Legislative Council, ‘Wewould like to bring the bill before the chamber anddebate it the same day’. That is what was sought. Thegovernment might try to articulate it in a better light butit sought to have the bill brought before the chamberand debated forthwith.



Hon. T. C. Theophanous — That is rubbish.

Hon. R. M. HALLAM — It is not rubbish; it is amatter of fact. If leave had not been refused theinference was that the debate would have proceededimmediately. That is not to say that the agreement thathas prevailed in the past will not apply in the future.Where bills come before the house for a variety ofreasons the government can expect agreement betweenthe parties on how the business of the house shall bemanaged. However, this is probably the most importantbill to come before the house in my time as a memberof this place. The bill seeks to change the rules bywhich legislation shall be promulgated. It seeks tochange the way the Victorian community shall berepresented in this place. It is an infernal cheek for thegovernment to say the house should debate the billimmediately.

I have put on the record again and again my belief thatthe government has treated this place with contempt. Itsays this place should be a house of review and theformer government was criticised because it wasargued that this house had not been allowed to assumeits proper role. The criticism made about the Kennettadministration was that the chamber had become arubber stamp. Now, when apparently under thegovernment’s rules the house has a chance to become aplace of review, the government wants to nobble it!You cannot have your cake and eat it too!

Hon. Kaye Darveniza interjected.

Hon. R. M. HALLAM — The honourable memberis not in her place, but I will answer her interjection. Ifthe house is meant to be a place of review it should betreated with some respect. The basis of my criticism afew days ago about introductory speeches demonstratedagain that the government has given no thought to theprocedures of the house. The bill is a classic example.Apparently, under the rules introduced by the Laborgovernment, the house is expected to debate a bill thatwill change the state constitution; yet it cannot evengive this house the courtesy of having an appropriateintroductory speech. I shall quote from thesecond-reading speech the minister read to the house afew moments ago:

The bill before the house —

It must be remembered that the bill before the housewill change the constitution of the state.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous — Like the hundreds oftimes you did it when you changed the constitution at amoment’s notice.

Hon. R. M. HALLAM — That is not true. Thesecond-reading speech states:

The bill before the house, for the reasons detailed in thesecond-reading speech of the reform bill, will ensure that thefollowing principle is put in place …

It states that it is for the reasons detailed in thesecond-reading speech of the reform bill. The reformbill did not reach this chamber! The speech is based ona concept delivered in another chamber, and this houseis expected to debate it on a moment’s notice. It is aclassic example of why honourable members oppositeshould not accommodate the government on everyoccasion. It cannot even get the rules right in respect ofthe introduction of bills. It is a classic example of whywe should not be railroaded into something that suitsthe government’s purpose.

The opposition parties require the standard process of atwo-week layover. That is exactly what has beenrequired in the past and exactly what has been honouredagain and again in the chamber. It does the Leader ofthe Government no good to cite examples from back inthe dim, Dark Ages.


Hon. R. M. HALLAM — For the record,Ms Darveniza, those bills did not change theconstitution. This bill will fundamentally change theconstitution. Why does the government want to rush thedebate through? Is it afraid of the reaction of thecommunity?


Hon. R. M. HALLAM — I heard the honourablemember ad nauseam on the ABC yesterday talkingabout a mandate and the right for the bill to be passedbecause the government took it to the Victoriancommunity before the election. Let the point be made:the government did not take this bill to the Victoriancommunity.


The PRESIDENT — Order! I suggest thehonourable member return to her place if she wants tointerject, and then that she does not interject.

Hon. R. M. HALLAM — The honourable memberis fond of relying on the concept of a mandate. Let therecord show that the Bracks government took nothinglike this bill to the Victorian community in advance ofthe state election. If for no other reason than basicpropriety, when a change to the constitution isenvisaged it would be appropriate to provide reasonable



time for the Victorian community to understand exactlywhat the government is up to. During the two-weeklayover I will explain to my electorate precisely whatthe government is up to. I am not afraid of the debate. Iwould like to bring the debate on, but I want mycommunity to understand exactly what the governmentis up to.

Hon. Kaye Darveniza — You’ve had it for months.Why didn’t you go to the community months agoand — —

Hon. R. M. HALLAM — I want that inaneinterjection on the record because the bill has not beenaround for months. This is about the third version thatthe Bracks government has introduced to the house. Itis a radically different proposal from the one that wasfirst floated. For that reason, if for no other, the billdeserves to be taken back to the community so that theopposition parties have a chance to show it to theirelectorates. If ever a bill deserved to have the process ofthe two-week layover acknowledged, this bill surelymust be it. I wholeheartedly support the standardtraditions of the house.

Hon. N. B. Lucas — On a point of order,Mr President, I refer you to your previous rulingregarding a second-reading speech made in this housethat did not cover the amendments carried in the otherplace. At the time you ruled that the second-readingspeech should take account of the amendments that hadbeen made in the other place and be updatedaccordingly.

The Leader of the National Party said that page 2 of thesecond-reading speech refers to the ‘reform bill’. Thatreference is incorrect and inappropriate in two ways:firstly, there is no such bill before the house, somembers are unable to examine the details of it; andsecondly, and most importantly, the bill does not exist.The reform bill, as it was referred to, has been split intotwo bills and the bills now before this chamber and theother place have entirely different names.

Mr President, I ask you to rule that the minister’ssecond-reading speech not be accepted by the housebased on your previous ruling.

The PRESIDENT — Order! What happened inrelation to the ruling I made on a previous occasion wasthat the second-reading speech given in the LegislativeAssembly related to a bill that was subsequentlyamended in that chamber but the second-reading speechgiven in this chamber did not take account of thoseamendments. That is why I made the ruling I did. Thisis a different case.

It is a lack of courtesy to the chamber that it ispresented with a speech that refers constantly to the‘reform bill’, which this house has never seen. I againask ministers to make sure that second-readingspeeches introduced into this place are appropriate tothe proceedings of this house and are not related tosomething that may or may not happen in anotherplace.

Although I understand the point made by Mr Lucas, Ido not uphold the point of order. I do not believe itrequires the withdrawal of the second-reading speech.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Jika Jika) — It isamazing that the opposition is not prepared to debatethis bill when the proposed legislation has been in thecommunity for four months.

Hon. R. M. Hallam — That is not true.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS — The issuessurrounding this legislation have been the subject ofvigorous debate in the community. The governmentwants to have this debate because this issue was part ofits election platform. It has a mandate to make thesechanges.

It is ridiculous that the Leader of the Liberal Party inthis place accuses the government of a grab for powerin the upper house when he controls 30 members out ofa total of 44.


Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS — I deliberately say30 members because the house has not seen a singleexample of any so-called autonomy from members ofthe National Party, even though they say they are goingit alone.


The PRESIDENT — Order! I ask Mr Theophanousto direct his remarks through the Chair and then no-oneelse will get excited.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS — We have not seenany sign whatsoever of the National Party beingprepared to take an independent stand on anything. Thecurrent situation in this house is 30 to 14! The group of30 is accusing the group of 14 of making a naked grabfor power! That is stretching the imagination even ofpeople who are supposed to be intelligent such asMr Birrell.

If members of the Liberal Party or the National Partywere saying that they want two weeks to have a



community debate the government would be preparedto grant not just two weeks but more than two weeks,because if they wanted to have a community debateduring which they would make up their minds about thereform of the upper house the government would behappy for them to go out and consider their position.

However, that is not the case. They have already madeup their minds. The Liberal Party issued a press releasestating that it would knock off all constitutional reformbeing put forward through these bills. The Liberal andNational parties are not interested in four-year terms.They are happy to sit back and have a sleep on thebackbench for eight years.

Hon. I. J. Cover interjected.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS — That is what yousaid. I am happy to submit myself to an election everyfour years. You clearly are not. Mr Cover, you do notwant the people of Geelong to have the chance to kickyou out.


The PRESIDENT — Order! The requirement thathonourable members make their remarks through theChair is for a reason. It is to stop the finger pointing andglaring at individuals across the chamber. I suggest thehonourable member glare at me.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS — There is anenormous amount of hypocrisy even on the question ofprecedents. The Leader of the Liberal Party referred tothe debate on the Audit Bill in 1997. A similar eventoccurred on that occasion.

Hon. R. M. Hallam — That is not true.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS — Wait and youmight be educated.

The Audit Bill was a significant piece of legislation.Some would argue that the changes made in the AuditBill were the single most important factor that led to thedownfall of the Kennett government. The amendmentsto Workcover and the Audit Bill were the two mostsignificant changes resisted and condemned by thecommunity.

Following the second-reading speech on the Audit BillI moved that debate be adjourned. That is similar towhat Mr Birrell did today. On that occasion theHonourable Rob Knowles moved that debate beadjourned until the next day of meeting. I moved anamendment to that motion suggesting that debate beadjourned until 1 September 1998.

A number of reasons were put to the house supportingthat adjournment, but the most important was to givethe Auditor-General the time to complete theperformance audits he had commenced and to allowsome time because the legislation was linked toNational Competition Council policy.

The Auditor-General asked that that be looked at, butthe previous government was not prepared to consideranything the Auditor-General put up. On that occasionthe Honourable Rob Knowles, a former Minister forHealth, said in answer to my attempt to change thewords of the motion that the debate be adjourned to thenext day of meeting — that is, that the debate occur thenext day that the house met:

This is an important bill that the house is competent to dealwith on the next day of meeting. The subject matter of the billhas a long history. It has been subject to independent reviewand much debate. No events will occur in the foreseeablefuture that will alter the membership of the house.

That is probably pretty true then and now:

Therefore, the members of this place are competent to debatethe issues to which the bill gives rise. If the house, in itswisdom, chooses not to proceed with the bill as it is currentlydrafted, it has the ability to do so. If, on the other hand, and asthe government advocates, the house accepts the argumentsmounted in support of it, the bill should be passed andbecome law.

It was all right then to go forward with a debate on theaudit legislation, which in the minds of many peoplewas one of the most important pieces of legislation thathad ever come before the house. It was okay to debatethat because, in the words of the Honourable RobKnowles, it had been the subject of review and muchdebate and no events would occur in the future to alterthe membership of the house. Furthermore, the housewas competent to deal with the issues.

Talk about hypocrisy! The Leader of the Opposition,looking increasingly like a man who is desperate to findanything to make him relevant as a leader of anopposition, has made inane comments and attempted toread out what I said to try to get what theAuditor-General wanted, which was a stay ofexecution, in order to conduct his office in anappropriate manner. I can tell you, Mr Hallam, a lot ofpeople in this house might wish you had adjourned thedebate back then and not proceeded to nobble theAuditor-General in the way you did because it mightwell have made a difference at the last election.

There is a precedent. The Leader of the Governmenthas pointed to the annual leave payments bill, anotherprecedent where this was done. The Honourable RobKnowles on that occasion moved that the debate be



adjourned until the next day of sitting, to which theHonourable David White, a former member for DouttaGalla, attempted to do exactly what the Leader of theOpposition is doing now — that is, get an adjournmentof two weeks. Of course the government at the time hadthe numbers and simply decided, ‘Stiff luck, we willnot do it’. On that occasion the Honourable RobKnowles said:

We have never sought to use our numbers in this house to gagdebate and have provided the opportunity for any memberwho wishes to make a contribution to do so.

That will continue with the debate on this bill, whichhas been in the public arena for almost a month. Thegovernment seeks the adjournment of the debate on thebill until tomorrow so the debate can continue. ‘Untiltomorrow’ means the very next day. As I said before,talk about hypocrisy! If the opposition wants to argue apoint of view it should at least have the decency to saythat there is some small measure of hypocrisy involvedin saying, ‘When we did it back then in government weused a different set of principles from what we areusing now in opposition’.

I finish my contribution with this final point.Mr Hallam made a point about refusing leave for thebill. Had Mr Hallam not refused leave yesterday, thesecond reading of the bill would have occurredyesterday by leave, which is more or less normalpractice in this house.


Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS — The secondreading would have occurred yesterday and debate onthe bill could have commenced today. However, theopposition has no intention of debating the bill thisweek. It does not want to debate it. It is concerned andis running scared from the legislation becauseopposition members will have to go out and explain totheir constituents why they do not want this place to beput before the people every four years rather than everyeight years.

Hon. G. W. JENNINGS (Melbourne) — I shallmake a brief contribution to debate on the motion forthe adjournment of the debate. It was not originally myintention to do so, but I take the opportunity to put onthe record that of course I support the motion moved bythe Leader of the Government and as part of thegovernment I will not oppose the amendment moved bythe Leader of the Opposition. I take that position andput it on the public record because we should not usethis opportunity to turn the Parliament into a courtroommelodrama.

In fact, many of the precedents referred to during thecontributions to the debate today have effectively beencalling on you, Mr President, to make a ruling based onprecedent that may appear to be an appropriatemechanism in a courtroom. All honourable members inthis chamber understand that is not how this houseoperates. The house operates on what will be a cleardivision along party lines on the motion. The clearoutcome of the matter has not been in dispute for thepast half-hour.

I call on all honourable members not to prematurely getout of the blocks, using an Olympic metaphor, inrelation to the substantive debate that will ensue whenwe next meet on 20 September, if the motion is passed,and not to blur the public policy positions we may bearguing at that time with what is simply a proceduralmatter at this time.

For my part, I have no qualms about meeting during theOlympic Games. If we bring on the debate on20 September the people who will suffer will be ourfamilies, whom we were hoping to spend some timewith during the school holidays.


The PRESIDENT — Order! The adjournment dateis just a minimum time.

Hon. M. A. Birrell — It does not affect the sittingdays, as I said in my opening remarks.

Hon. G. W. JENNINGS — I am happy to be hereon 20 September. That is my understanding of themotion. On that basis I apologise to the house for beingconfused. I thought that was the intent of what theLeader of the Opposition was doing.

Hon. M. A. Birrell — You obviously did not listento my speech.

Hon. G. W. JENNINGS — As I said, I got lost onthe way through the various arguments about what washoped to be achieved. If the date when the debate willbe undertaken is made clear, the government has noproblems with the amendment. In fact, the argumenthas become even more superficial because we will havea clear understanding between us that if leave is notgranted or if an adjournment is sought, the house willdivide upon party lines and the government will acceptthat result. That is clear. I would encourage thehouse — —

Hon. M. A. Birrell — Mr Theophanous spokeagainst the amendment.

ESSENTIAL SERVICES LEGISLATION (DISPUTE RESOLUTION) BILL


Hon. G. W. JENNINGS — In consultation with theLeader of the Government, I support her position. Thegovernment will not oppose the amendment moved bythe opposition.

Hon. BILL FORWOOD (Templestowe) — I riseas much as anything to say two things: the first is thatwe on this side of the chamber are delighted to workwith the Deputy Leader of the Government in acooperative manner to assist the work flow in thechamber. I contrast his approach to that of the formerLeader of the Opposition. This place works better whenall sides try to reach agreement on the way these thingsare handled. However, we on this side now seekclarification of what the government intends. Is it theintention of the government to change the sitting datesthat have been promulgated — —

Hon. M. A. Birrell — By the Premier.

Hon. BILL FORWOOD — Yes, promulgated bythe Premier, so that we return on 20 September, or is it,as we on this side of the house understand it, that if weadjourn the bill today for two weeks it will then bedebated the first day we come back, which, frommemory, is 3 October?

Hon. G. W. JENNINGS (Melbourne) (By leave) —I thank the house for the opportunity to clarify theposition. My understanding is that the next time wehave an opportunity to debate the matter will be on thenext day of sitting. My contribution was based upon thefalse assumption that the opposition’s amendment mayhave brought that sitting date forward. I apologise to thehouse for my confusion.

Amendment agreed to.

Amended motion agreed to and debate adjourned untilWednesday, 20 September.

ESSENTIAL SERVICES LEGISLATION(DISPUTE RESOLUTION) BILL

Second reading

Hon. C. C. BROAD (Minister for Energy andResources) — I move:


The purpose of this bill is to enable the establishment ofan Essential Services Ombudsman. The EssentialServices Ombudsman will provide a customerdispute-handling mechanism for utility industries that isindependent, fair and cost effective.

This bill fulfils a key government election commitmentto establish an independent ombudsman to handlecustomer complaints and make rulings in relation tocompensation in the utility industries. It represents animportant part of the government’s overall strategy toensure that the introduction of competition andcommercial provision into the delivery of these servicesis balanced by appropriate protections for customers.Utility services such as electricity, gas, water andsewerage are fundamental to the daily lives of allVictorians. The creation of the ESO complements othergovernment initiatives including its customer protectionframework for full retail competition in electricity andits proposal to establish an Essential ServicesCommission which will regulate the utility industries toensure that they operate in the interests of consumersand society at large.

Following an extensive public consultation processinvolving customer groups, the utility businesses, andother key stakeholders, the government has come to theview that the ESO is best established by building on theexisting energy industry scheme to include water andsewerage customer complaints. At this stage thegovernment will not be including public transportwithin the Essential Services Ombudsman.

The government’s approach to establishing the ESOreflects its confidence in the current operation of theEnergy Industry Ombudsman, and builds on broadcommunity support for these proposals expressedduring the consultation process. The new ESO schemewill ensure that:

customers of government-owned water authoritiesacross the state have access to an independentexternal complaint-handling scheme if they cannotreceive satisfaction from their local water supplier.The current arrangements for complaint handling inthe water industry inherited by the government areinadequate;

electricity, gas, and water customers can go to a‘one-stop shop’ for dispute resolution, at no cost tothemselves;

the scheme is funded by the utility suppliers ratherthan the taxpayer, and provides a strong incentive forthem to resolve any complaints speedily; and

the new scheme can be established at least cost bybuilding on and improving existing customercomplaint mechanisms rather than incur thedisruption and cost of starting from scratch.

The government is now working with the EnergyIndustry Ombudsman, the Regulator-General, the

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (RESTORATION OF LOCAL DEMOCRACY TO MELTON) BILL


energy and water businesses, and customer grouprepresentatives to implement the new ESO scheme. Aspart of this process, the government is looking for somechanges to the operation of the current scheme toensure its effectiveness and independence.

This bill establishes the formal legislative underpinningfor the scheme. The government believes the right ofcustomers of utility businesses to have access to anindependent low-cost external complaint-handlingmechanism is of such fundamental importance that itshould be enshrined in the law. The bill will thereforeimpose the requirement on relevant electricity, gas, andwater businesses to be members of such a disputeresolution scheme as a matter of law.

The government also believes the ongoing effectivenessof the scheme should be subject to independentoversight to ensure that it continues to providecustomers with an independent, effective and low costdispute-resolution process. To this end, the governmentwill retain — and indeed strengthen — the role of theindependent Regulator-General in overseeing thescheme. The bill provides that the Regulator-Generalcertify that the scheme is operating in accordance witha number of specific criteria, including:

the scheme is accessible and there are no costbarriers to consumers for its use;

the scheme is independent from its members;

the scheme’s decisions are fair and seen to be fair;

the scheme is accountable, by ensuring thepublication of its decisions and information aboutcomplaints received; and

the scheme is operationally efficient and effective,by ensuring that the scheme undertakes regularreviews of its performance.

Finally, the bill provides for the licences of the gasdistribution businesses — in addition to gas retailbusinesses — to require membership of a disputeresolution mechanism approved by the ORG. This is toensure that end customers are not disadvantaged inhaving a complaint resolved because of a contractual orother dispute between their gas retail and distributionbusinesses. This provision will put gas distributionbusinesses on the same footing as electricitydistribution businesses, which already have thisobligation. The ORG will be consulting extensivelywith the industry in determining the best approach tomeeting this obligation — which may or may notinvolve membership of the ESO.

I now turn to the specifics of the bill.

Part 1 of the bill states the purpose of the bill and itscommencement date.

Part 2 provides for the amendment of the ElectricityIndustry Act 1993 to require that the licences issued tothe electricity retail and distribution businesses includean obligation to be members of a customer disputeresolution scheme approved by the Office of theRegulator-General, in accordance with specifiedcriteria.

Part 3 provides for a parallel amendment to the GasIndustry Act 1994 in respect of the gas retail anddistribution businesses.

Part 4 provides for amendment of the Water IndustryAct 1994 to require that the licensees (the threemetropolitan water retail businesses: South East Water,City West Water, and Yarra Valley Water) enter into acustomer dispute-resolution scheme approved by theOffice of the Regulator-General with regard to thespecified criteria.

Part 5 provides for amendment of the Water Act 1989to require that the 15 non-metropolitan and 3 ruralwater authorities (which do not operate under alicensing regime) enter into a dispute-resolution schemeapproved by the Office of the Regulator-General withregard to the specified criteria.

Part 6 provides for amendment of the Melbourne WaterCorporation Act 1992 to require the Melbourne WaterCorporation to enter into a dispute-resolution schemeapproved by the Regulator-General, again inaccordance with specified criteria.


Debate adjourned for Hon. PHILIP DAVIS (Gippsland)on motion of Hon. Bill Forwood.

Debate adjourned until next day.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (RESTORATIONOF LOCAL DEMOCRACY TO MELTON)

BILL

Second reading



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


This bill is very important for local government inVictoria. It continues the local government reformsalready introduced by the Bracks Government withbest-value Victoria.

Melton shire

Local government should ordinarily be made up oflocal elected councillors. The time has well passed forcommissioners in Melton, and this bill returns Meltonto normal.

We have a system of local government in Victoria,consisting of democratically elected councils. However,the Kennett government ignored this fundamental tenetof our constitution by retaining commissioners inMelton long after the restructure of Melton had beencompleted.

This bill gives back to the people of Melton the basicright that all other Victorians enjoy. This governmentdoes not intend to deny the voters their democraticrights any longer. The bill returns democracy to theresidents of Melton.

This bill provides for the holding of a general electionof councillors for the Melton shire on 13 October 2001.The commissioners will go out of office at the firstmeeting of the newly elected council. Thecommissioners’ early removal from office reflects thenecessity of returning democracy to all Victorians andis to occur with the agreement of the commissionerswho accept the need to restore democracy at Melton atthe earliest possible time. The government takes thisopportunity to acknowledge the work of thecommissioners for the service they have given sincetaking up office.

Following the election on 13 October 2001, subsequentelections will occur triennially, in line with othercouncil elections (i.e., this term is two and a half years).

Miscellaneous amendments

The proposed bill also makes minor housekeepingamendments to the Local Government Act 1989.

I now turn to the provisions of the bill.

Clause 1 outlines the purpose of the bill — that is, toamend the Local Government Act to provide for theholding of a general election of councillors for theMelton Shire Council.

Clause 2 identifies the dates on which various sectionsof the bill will commence.

Clause 3 substitutes a new division 3 for divisions 3, 4and 5 of Part 12 of the Local Government Act.

Section 248 provides for the holding of a generalelection of councillors for the Melton shire on13 October 2001. It provides that the council is deemedto have decided to hold triennial elections and to havecomplied with the act’s requirements as to notice. Thecosts of the election are to be borne by the council.

Section 249 provides that the chief executive officermust call a meeting of the council within 14 days of thedeclaration of the election result.

Section 250 provides that the commissioners go out ofoffice at the start of that meeting.

Section 251 provides that subsequent elections must beheld in March in every third year. The next election willbe held in March 2004.

Clause 4 amends the Local Government Act to enablethe holding of the election on 13 October 2001.

Clause 5 repeals the provisions of the act pertaining tothe first poll of voters and the continuing appointmentof commissioners.

Clause 6 provides that, upon the first council meetingafter the election on 13 October 2001, the order incouncil that appointed the commissioners is revoked.

Clause 7 provides for the repeal of the LocalGovernment (Governance and Melton) Act 1998 whichis a spent act.


Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. N. B. LUCAS(Eumemmerring).

Debate adjourned until next day.


Sessional orders


That so much of the sessional orders be suspended as wouldprevent new business being taken after 8.00 p.m. during thesitting of the Council this day.

Motion agreed to.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY (GENDER IDENTITY AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION) BILL


EQUAL OPPORTUNITY (GENDERIDENTITY AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION)

BILL

Second reading

Debate resumed from 30 August; motion ofHon. M. R. THOMSON (Minister for Small Business).

Hon. C. A. FURLETTI (Templestowe) — TheLiberal Party does not oppose the bill. The EqualOpportunity Act was introduced by the Kennettgovernment and, like the legislation covering thevictims of crime scheme that was amended by thehouse yesterday, was considered to be innovative andbroad-reaching legislation for its time.

I remind the house of the purpose of the bill inclause 1 — that is, to:

… amend the Equal Opportunity Act 1995 to prohibitdiscrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexualorientation.

Section 6 of the Equal Opportunity Act lists13 attributes; the bill adds two further attributes thatrelate to sexual orientation and gender identity. Thelisted attributes prohibit discrimination and includeelements such as age, marital status, pregnancy,religious beliefs, sex and race.

The Equal Opportunity Act is, as I said, a fairlyfar-reaching piece of legislation. While it provides forthe prohibition of discrimination in respect of a numberof attributes, part 3 of the act sets out in considerabledetail the areas in which discrimination is prohibited.Those areas are covered in eight divisions of part 3 andcover discrimination in employment;employment-related areas; education; the provision ofgoods and services and disposal of land;accommodation; clubs and club membership; sport; andlocal government. I hasten to point out that each areaidentifies numerous exemptions when discrimination ispermitted, and some 55 sections in part 3 set out inconsiderable detail the manner in which some elementof discrimination is permitted. In addition to theexemptions I have referred to in part 3, part 4 contains anumber of further general exemptions to the prohibitionof discrimination.

Many members of the Victorian community haveexpressed concern and anxiety at the perceivedramifications of the bill before the house today. I amsure that, like me, many members of the house havereceived a large amount of correspondence andcommunication expressing that concern. Thosecomments and contributions along with consultation

with the broader community were taken into account bythe Liberal Party in considering its resolution not tooppose the legislation. The opposition does not opposethe main thrust of the bill. In fact, it believes that thoseareas it actually addresses are covered in the existinglegislation. If there are any concerns or uncertainty as tothe extent of the effects of the Equal Opportunity Act1995, the opposition is happy to clarify those areas. Iwill comment shortly in that regard.

I hasten to put on the record that it is fundamentalLiberal philosophy that we support the right of anindividual to achieve his or her full potential withoutbeing subjected in any way to discrimination, and thatall people should be treated equally. However, this typeof legislation causes concern among various sectors ofthe community and requires the striking of that essentialbalance between the opposite spectrums of ourcommunity — that is, those who often fail to see thewood for the trees at each end of the forest in whichthey are standing.

It is for that reason that I have taken some time to try tobring the effects of this bill into the more global aspectof the amendments to the Equal Opportunity Act. Thebill not only affects the specific attributes being dealtwith in it but is also part of a broader picture and a moreglobal area of gender identification.

Before addressing the effects of the bill, I bring to theattention of the house the meanderings of this bill on itsjourney to this place. This is an another example of theinexperienced and amateurish way in which thegovernment is handling its legislative program. We sawthis a short time ago in the material put before thehouse. A bill to amend the Equal Opportunity Act wasintroduced in the other place last April. As with theConstitution (Reform) Bill, which was withdrawn andhas disappeared into the ether; the AccidentCompensation (Common Law and Benefits) Bill,which was debated earlier this year; the so-calledresponsible gambling bill and a raft of other legislation,no consultation took place before the bill wasintroduced.

In its anxiety to create the perception that it is doingsomething the Bracks government rushes legislationinto the Parliament and says it has done what it couldand what it promised it would do. I remind thegovernment that hasty introduction of hastily drawnlegislation leads to bad law for which the governmentof the day must accept responsibility and under whichVictorians citizens must unfortunately labour.

This bill is another of those pieces of legislation whichthe government introduced with some fanfare and then,



lo and behold, it found that it did not have the numbersin the other place to guarantee its passage. Therefore,the bill was required to lay over during the winterrecess. We have a different bill before the house todayto that which was tabled in April. Amendments weremade after negotiation with the Independents and as aresult of consultation with those whom the bill affects. Iam not being derogatory in any way of the degree ofconsultation that has taken place. As I indicated, theLiberal Party has also consulted broadly with those whoare affected by the bill.

The Liberal Party supports the concept that no-one inthe community should be subject to discrimination, andthat is why when in government it introduced the EqualOpportunity Act 1995 which has served the state wellto date.

The bill is fairly brief. It deals with three principalareas. As I have foreshadowed, it introduces two newattributes under section 6 of the principal act — that is,sexual orientation and gender identity. The bill alsointroduces a number of exceptions to the application ofthe gender identity basis for discrimination in so far asit relates to employment. Through a transitionalprovision the bill inserts proposed section 224 into theprincipal act and introduces a retrospective provisionthat allows for claims for alleged discrimination on thebasis of sexual orientation alone to be brought after thecommencement of operation of the bill,notwithstanding that the acts occurred before thepassage of the bill.

I have a fundamental opposition to the retrospectiveoperation of most laws unless there are veryexceptional circumstances. Therefore I find it unusualthat this type of provision is being introduced,particularly when the provision relates to only oneaspect of the bill — the sexual orientation aspect — andis not extended to the other — the gender identity sideof it. I find it difficult to understand the reasoningbehind that. The second-reading speech does notenlighten us in any way.

I hope the failure of the government to explain the basisfor introducing retrospective legislation is not based ona blatant political grab. The politicising of such an issuein the community is not something that should be donelightly. I guess we will eventually be informed why thatparticular anomaly exists in the bill.

The bill addresses the issue of discrimination against avery small number of people who suffer a genuineidentity crisis and who may have fallen through thecracks in the existing legislation. The community,which is called the transgender community, includes

those who have been described by the shadowAttorney-General in the other place as those who aresuffering psychological or biological trauma and whosebirth sex does not match their gender identity. Hesuggested that such people feel trapped in a bodies theydo not want and do not know which gender they are. Iadmit readily to my lack of knowledge andunderstanding of that condition. That it is causedthrough chromosomal and biological defects onlyaffords me a limited clarification, but I am sure thatother speakers will have greater expertise and will putgreater detail before the house.

I have certainly been satisfied through the number ofbriefings and consultations I have had thatnotwithstanding the relatively low number of peoplewho are affected a very high level of discriminationexists against those few people. That is usual because itis in that sort of rare atmosphere that discriminationthrives, because the fewer the numbers and the moreexceptional the attribute, the easier it is to bediscriminatory.

In addressing the bill in detail I will refer to defects in itand the reasons the opposition will say it does notoppose the bill rather than say it supports it.

Yesterday in a debate on another bill I drew to theattention of the house an unusual reference in the bill —to the ‘purposes and objects’ of that bill. Anotherunusual reference in the bill now before the house is inthe definition of gender identity in clause 4(1)(b). Itstates that ‘gender identity’ means the identification ona bona fide basis — I emphasise the bona fide basis —of a person of indeterminate sex, et cetera.

Hon. R. M. Hallam interjected.

Hon. C. A. FURLETTI — I know what the term‘bona fide’ means. It refers to somebody who is actingin good faith, Mr Hallam, but I wish to make the pointthat in the interpretation of legislation it is not necessaryto put that a person is acting in good faith in asubjective sense because clearly it is presumed to be thecase. If one needed to add that in every instance thestate’s legislation would be a bit strange.

One could translate it into a driving situation, where itwould be said a person was driving bona fide in a safeand appropriate manner. One could probably put bonafide in front of each of the attributes listed in section 6of the act. I can therefore only conclude the use of theterm ‘bona fide’ is a sop to the Independents, who hadsomething to say about it, because it was not in theoriginal draft of the bill that was tabled earlier in theyear.



Clause 4 also refers to medical intervention. Again Iseem to be harping on my penchant for wantingaccuracy in the legislation that comes before the house.My view is that legislation should be readilyunderstandable. Honourable members can appreciateareas where a carefree approach or some lack ofprecision would be accepted, but to use terms such as‘medical intervention’ in legislation of this nature mustof necessity cause legislators some concern, becausemedical intervention can mean anything fromconsulting a doctor who suggests that you do thingsdifferently to undergoing the dramatic surgery that isinvolved in some of the procedures being discussed.The inaccuracy in this particular instance leaves a lot tobe desired.

Another aspect arises from an experience I had when Iwas in practice. It concerned psychological advice orintervention, which is clearly a fairly common elementof treatment in the area under discussion. I rememberseeking to rely at one stage on a psychologist’s report ina criminal matter and the judge indicating very early inthe piece that there was absolutely no way the lawallowed him to accept that evidence because thepsychologist could have been somebody who had onlyan arts degree, commerce or law degree, and was not amedical person. The judge indicated he requiredmedical evidence in the form of a psychiatrist’s report.Those sorts of subtle differences can present difficultiesfurther down the track in applying the legislation.

Clause 4(2) inserts a new definition of sexualorientation in section 4 of the principal act. It wasindicated to the policy committee that sexualorientation was encompassed in the existing act underthe definition of lawful sexual activity. In thesecond-reading speech the minister indicated that wasprobably the case but that the term ‘lawful sexualactivity’ had connotations that were not very wellreceived by gay and lesbian groups and therefore thenew definition would be far more suitable. Again I ask,if the new definition is more appropriate I am surprisedthat the term ‘lawful sexual activity’ has not beenremoved and the new definition substituted. However,there is no explanation in the second-reading speech asto the motive for that.

Clause 5 simply adds two new attributes in section 6 towhich I have previously referred. Clause 6 insertsproposed section 27B to provide a further exceptionunder the category of employment.

I mentioned earlier discrimination in the field ofemployment, for which there are number of exceptions.The bill adds a further exception. My argument is thatthere is no need for it because the provisions currently

in the Equal Opportunity Act, in particular sections 17and 24, would cover the concerns that are addressed inproposed section 27B. The clause may have been forthe purpose of negotiating the safe passage of the billthrough the other place with the Independents. Itappears to create more problems than it will solve.

I direct attention to the provisions of section 17 of theact, where there is an exception from discrimination ifthere is a genuine occupational requirement in theemployment. A number of areas are addressedspecifically, such as particular physical characteristicsbeing necessary for the employment; to preservedecency or privacy; searching of the clothing or bodiesof people of that sex; being required to enter a toiletused by people of that sex; and so on. Sex-specificareas are allowed some discrimination.

Section 24 of the act refers specifically to standards ofdress and behaviour and states:

An employer may set and enforce standards of dress,appearance and behaviour for employees that are reasonablehaving regard to the nature and circumstances of theemployment.

Clause 6 inserts proposed section 27B, which states:

(1) An employer may discriminate against another personon the basis of gender identify in any of the areasspecified in section 13 or 14 if —

(a) the person does not give the employer adequatenotice of the person’s gender identity; or.

(b) the person gives the employer adequate notice ofthe person’s gender identity but it is unreasonablein the circumstances for the employer not todiscriminate against the person.

It sets parameters within which the determination ofreasonableness comes into play.

I would hesitate to advise anybody, even with 30 yearsof legal practice behind me, on what the term adequatenotice would be in those circumstances, what thatnotice should contain and what form it should take. Onehas to ask whether the notice relates to the mere fact ofgender identity or whether it relates to the fact that thereis to be a change — if so, the process of a change couldextend for up to six months. That creates moreproblems than it seeks to address.

All the states and territories except Queensland haveintroduced legislation of this type. The Liberal Partysupports the concept of the bill, but as usual it is obligedto express its concerns about the drafting andimplementation of the legislation.



Hon. G. D. ROMANES (Melbourne) — I supportthe Equal Opportunity (Gender Identity and SexualOrientation) Bill, which is an important step forward inhuman rights legislation in Victoria. The purpose of thebill is to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexualorientation or gender identity and thereby extendprotection against discrimination on the basis ofhomosexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality for allVictorians.

Clause 5 of the bill introduces two further attributes,gender identity and sexual orientation, into the EqualOpportunity Act. By doing so it extends protection topeople whose gender identity does not match theirphysical sex at birth. This transgender group includespeople who have undergone reassignment surgery,people who have not undergone surgery but seek to liveas a member of the other sex and people whotemporarily, such as cross-dressers, on a bona fide basisadopt the characteristics of the other sex.

Clause 4 inserts definitions into section 4 of theprincipal act and also provides that the definitions in thebill relate to people who identify on a bona fide basis asmembers of the other sex.

The addition of the term ‘bona fide’ was introducedinto the bill after consultation with the Independents inthe other place and with other stakeholders involvedoriginally in the drafting of the bill, includingTransgender Victoria, the Equal OpportunityCommission and other interested parties. When the billwas introduced into the other place in April theIndependents expressed concern about it, and at thatpoint further consultation took place which resulted inbroad agreement and the introduction of the term ‘bonafide’ into the bill.

The fact that the various parties who debated theseissues over the past few months have been able to reachagreement on various parts of the bill that have beenaltered since it was first introduced in the LegislativeAssembly reflects a desire across all parties to find away forward and to ensure that the bill goes ahead toprotect those among the most vulnerable in thecommunity who are involved in making such serious,life-changing decisions as changing their genderidentity.

In reflecting on this issue and its importance to thepeople involved I refer to the Health Report on ABCradio last Monday evening. Professor Louis Gooren,Professor of Endocrinology at the Free University ofAmsterdam, spoke about his work in a clinic fortranssexuals in the Netherlands. He said he had workedin the clinic for more than 25 years and during that

period has seen more than 2200 people, includingchildren as young as five years of age and the membersof their families who brought them to the clinic,grappling with these problems.

Professor Gooren said that each year he would seeabout 150 new subjects and a range of treatmentswould be available, but about 90 cases would involvesurgical treatment. Professor Gooren stated that therewas:

… no way but to adapt body to the mind.

Consideration of those cases led him to the conclusionthat the best way forward for the people he was seeingwas to have treatment or to have surgery. ProfessorGooren made another telling point when he said thatno-one does it for fun.

As the previous speaker said, the legislation affects asmall number of people. However, it is importantbecause it affects the lives of those vulnerable people. Ifone examines the amendments to the 1995 EqualOpportunity Act one notes that the term ‘lawful sexualactivity’ was introduced as a ground on which it wasunlawful to discriminate. On that occasion thatantidiscrimination amendment was introduced andadded to the list of attributes in the act that was quotedearlier by the Honourable Carlo Furletti.

The amendment was seen to relate mainly tohomosexuality. As was said earlier, the gay and lesbiancommunities took offence at the inference that they aremore likely to engage in unlawful sexual activities thanother sections of the community. Nonetheless, theVictorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby hascommented on the fact that the introduction of thatamendment and that ground on which it becameunlawful to discriminate in 1995 has brought someimprovement to their situation. The 1999 report of theVictorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, Enough isEnough, surveyed 929 members of gay, lesbian,bisexual and transgender communities in Victoria andreported some optimism that the lawful sexual activityattribute has contributed to a decrease in reporteddiscrimination in some areas, such as goods andservices and the police force, where some good work isreportedly being done to combat discrimination. Theattribute of lawful sexual activity will remain in the actas a protection for Victorians of whatever sexuality.

Following consultation with the Independents and as aresult of the working party convened by theParliamentary Secretary for Justice, Mr RichardWynne, the bill adds a new exception to the range ofexceptions already contained in the Equal OpportunityAct. The amendment provides that an employer will be



able to discriminate against a job applicant or employeeon the basis of a person’s gender identity if the persondoes not give the employer adequate notice of theperson’s gender identity, or gives adequate notice but itis unreasonable in the circumstances for the employernot to discriminate.

As the Honourable Carlo Furletti pointed out, termssuch as ‘unreasonable’ and ‘adequate notice’ and even‘bona fide’ can provide some difficulty in interpretationwhen cases reach the courts or tribunals of the state.Therefore the CEO of the Equal OpportunityCommission will undertake to provide guidance andeducational material on the operation of those terms.The material will be developed and distributed by theEqual Opportunity Commission. An educational task isrequired to facilitate and assist the operation of the billwhen it becomes law.

I turn to the reasons for the amendments. Previously Ireferred to the research done by the Victorian Gay andLesbian Rights Lobby in its 1999 survey. For the firsttime the survey, by comparison with the 1994 survey,separated out transgender people as a separate category.Further information has come forward aboutdiscrimination against transgender Victorians asopposed to lesbians, gay men and bisexuals.

According to the research 84 per cent of the929 members interviewed reported at least one form ofdiscrimination or abuse. Those who reported suchdiscrimination or abuse reported it in the followingcategories: assault or harassment in a public place,79 per cent; employment, 48 per cent; education, 31 percent; the provision of goods and services, 28 per cent;medical treatment, 27 per cent; police or other lawenforcement bodies, 20 per cent; parenting, 16 per cent;club membership, 14 per cent; and tenancy, 11 per cent.They are significant figures, and the overall incidenceof discrimination and abuse at 84 per cent is a worryingfigure for these groups.

Transgender participants in the survey were more likelythan the other groups to report discrimination or abuseconnected with the police, goods and services and in acategory that had particular reference to transgenderpeople — invisibility. The invisibility that affectstransgender people is the consequence of assumptionsthat heterosexual relationships are the natural ones inthe community and practised by all its members. Thisbelief has led to legal and social invisibility for manylesbians, gay men and bisexuals but in particular it isfelt very acutely by transgender people. It is an issuethat affects the mental health of that group and oftenleads to low self-esteem and depression. It is asignificant issue for the transgender community.

Society needs to address the underlying causes ofdiscrimination. I direct the attention of honourablemembers to the Australian Institute of Criminologystudy no. 155, which I am sure most honourablemembers have recently received, dealing with gay-haterelated homicides. The study highlights the relationshipbetween such crimes and prejudice within society andmakes the point that there is a need to tackle theattitudes that underpin such crimes and acts. Attitudesneed to be tackled before behaviour can change.

The study also makes the point that parliaments cansend strong messages about the value of tolerance,acceptance and diversity and that parliamentarians havea role to play. Parliamentarians can send a message andcourts, commissions and tribunals can reinforce thatmessage. Educational bodies such as schools and othereducational institutions play important roles. TheAustralian Institute of Criminology would say they playa unique role in other ways.

I quote from page 6 of the Australian Institute ofCriminology report, which states:

It has been emphasised that the school environment is a placeof education as well as a place where socialisation with otherchildren with different characteristics occurs. Therefore,schools are in a unique position whereby they are able toteach children the general values of accepting one another andof valuing and respecting each other despite differences.‘Children and adults armed with strong values are likely to bebetter able to resist the misinformation and invitations toviolence found in the community’.

That emphasises the important role of schools andeducation institutions in socialisation, in teachingvalues of acceptance and tolerance and encouragingand teaching young people to respect difference — andthere are a range of differences such as language,cultural mores, gender, sexual orientation, disabilities,working backgrounds and age that we need to takeaccount of if we are to live in harmony in society.

The Australian Institute of Criminology makes thepoint that discrimination and crimes of discriminationare based on bigotry and do not impact just on thetarget group but also on the wider community, and theyaffect the social harmony we strive for.

The bill is important because it is a statementfundamental to the community and society we want tosee in place in Victoria. It reflects the need for thewhole of society to remain vigilant in protectingeveryone, no matter where they come from and whattype of person they are, but particularly the mostvulnerable. It reminds us that difference constitutes thegreatest challenge for the world. I am mindful whensaying that of media reports in the past few days that



highlight the horrible case in South Africa where awhite employer is accused of dragging a blackemployee behind his truck for 5 kilometres, leading tothe death of the employee. Difference can lead to fearand can create enormous barriers. We have to recognisedifference and grapple with it daily. Parents,governments and legislatures around the world,including this Parliament, have a role in settingstandards appropriate to the recognition of diversity inall its shapes and colours and in valuing difference inour communities.

We also know that the laws and actions of governmentto support those differences, whatever they are,highlight the fragility of people in minorities or incertain situations. It worries me as a woman that thefederal government has failed to adopt the optionalprotocols of the United Nations convention on theelimination of discrimination against women. It is thewrong message to send to the world and to ourcommunity, particularly to women in our community,about the rights and protections women need. I amconcerned about the ramifications of the federalgovernment’s action and the message it sends and theeffects it will have in the medium and long term.

Through the bill we need to make a strong statementabout difference, about tolerance, about values andabout respect for the many different people who live inour society. We must act consistently in this regard andput in place a legislative framework that further protectssome of the most vulnerable in our community.

I understand from what Mr Furletti said that the LiberalParty does not oppose the bill. I wish it had supportedand been more encouraging of the bill and theprotection of the people it is designed to assist.Nevertheless, the fact that the Liberal Party will notoppose the bill is a step forward, and I welcome that.There is a lot more work to do.

Hon. W. I. Smith — The initiating bill was a reformof the Kennett government.

Hon. G. D. ROMANES — The Liberal Party is notenthusiastically supporting it.

Hon. M. T. Luckins — It has been modified.

Hon. G. D. ROMANES — I remind the house thatthe government and the Equal OpportunityCommission are reviewing the Equal Opportunity Actand the many recommendations in Enough is Enough,so there is much more to do and consider in the monthsand years ahead to address the full range of problemsfaced by transsexual and gay and lesbian communitiesin society. I commend the bill to the house.

Hon. R. M. HALLAM (Western) — The NationalParty found the Equal Opportunity (Gender Identityand Sexual Orientation) Bill most difficult, and I admitthat our members went through something of a strugglebefore reaching a consensus view which I now report tothe chamber — namely, that the bill should not beopposed.

I am happy to have the chance to report upon thereasons why the National Party found this bill difficult.At the outset I state that we did not find it to becomplex, because as we now learn it has one centralobjective, which on the surface is clear. All it seeks todo is change the Equal Opportunity Act prohibitingdiscrimination on the basis of two new grounds —namely, that of gender identity and/or sexualorientation. They are the two new grounds in additionto those listed in section 6, which refers to age,impairment, industrial activity, lawful sexual activity,marital status, physical features, political belief oractivity, pregnancy, race, religious belief or activity, sexand parental status or status as a carer.

The bill is relatively simple and makes one singlechange that could have been captured in one sentence inthe purpose clause. The question is why it involved somuch concern across the community, so much debatehere and in another place and so much time, thoughtand energy at our party room table.

I hasten to clarify one point. The bill has one singleobjective, which is to prohibit discrimination onparticular grounds. I make it clear that the concern ofthe National Party and the difficulty it had did not go tothe fact that the bill relates to the prohibition ofdiscrimination. The National Party was not trying towind back the clock. Its views on discrimination werewell documented when the Equal Opportunity Act wasframed and debated in 1995. I, along with mycolleagues, am proud of the extent to which our partycontributed to that legislation, which we say is ahigh-water mark of community standards andexpectations relative to overt, unwarranteddiscrimination.

The National Party considers that in government itcontributed to enlightened legislation — legislation thatwas heading in the right direction — and it supports thenotion that community tolerance should be a primaryobjective. The National Party also supports the notionthat that same concept of community tolerance can bepursued or at least promoted by legislation, rather thansimply waiting for the innate good of man to emergefrom the community at some time in the future.



Our starting point is that the Parliament cannot legislatemorals, but it can set standards and expectations. TheNational Party is relaxed about the Parliament leadingthe charge rather than blithely following communityopinion. Indeed, one thing that is paramount in the viewtaken by my colleagues is that the individualresponsibility of members of this place is that ofrepresentatives of their electorate as distinct from thoseof delegates. We place great store on the distinctionbetween the role of a representative and that of adelegate. Therefore, to a person, we take the view thatwe are stuck with the need to keep an eye all the timeon the big picture and the long-term benefits, asopposed to the views of the last protest group we mayhave spoken to.

I make the point, and it was a point well made in theparty room debate, that the National Party believes ithas demonstrated in government that it is not afraid tobe up-front in relation to controversy, and it thinks thatbeing up-front is the much more responsible position.We acknowledge it is not as comfortable as being downthe back with the stragglers, and probably not aspopular, but it is much more responsible to be in thevanguard. We take the view that members of this placeshould assume, at least in some part, the role ofleadership rather than that of follower.

The point that I want to make in this context is that thedifficulty the National Party confronted in the bill wasnot an attempt to step back from the 1995 position, or toweasel out of the position taken then, but quite thereverse. Its major concern was that the bill and thechanges that were in it may have the effect, albeitunwittingly, of winding back and unravelling theprotections built into the legislation already on thestatute book — that is, the 1995 act. While thegovernment may, with all the best intentions, want toextend and clarify the existing law, our concern is thathowever well meaning that objective may be, the billmay well have the opposite effect and actually limit theprotection provided by the 1995 act through theintroduction of several complex and arguable newconcepts. I note that the Honourable Glenyys Romanesin her contribution to the debate included the fact that anumber of the concepts introduced in the bill are at leastarguable.

The National Party’s view is that some of thoseconcepts are so complex and arguable that they maywell land up in a court for determination, and in theprocess open the door to an unpredictable outcome.That was our dilemma. I instance the examplesprovided by the Honourable Carlo Furletti, whomentioned the new concept of medical interventionwhich is included in the definition of gender identity in

the bill. Mr Furletti mentioned the issue of adequatenotice, which is now to be part of proposedsection 27B. There are others. Let us think fleetinglyabout the issues of cost and discrimination, feasibility,financial impact, financial circumstance, andunreasonableness, all included in proposed section 27B.For that reason alone there was a great need to take carewith the bill.

It is important to remember, at least from ourperspective, that discrimination is not banned by thecurrent legislation. It is not banned by the bill. If onegoes to the law of the land, the statutes of this state, onesees there are pages of exemptions and exceptionsbased on realistic occupational requirements,reasonable terms of employment, and the realities of thephysiological differences between the sexes. There areplenty of examples where the physiological differencesimpact in a way that is logical and supportable, and wenote exemptions in respect of competitive sports, orwhere services are based on those physiologicaldifferences — for instance, the difference in lifeexpectancy across the sexes is most assuredly to betaken into account by the insurance underwriter who iswriting life cover.

That might be at one extreme, but it is just as cogent toargue that the same issues need to be taken into accountif one is, say, interviewing a sales assistant working in alingerie shop. I spent a lot of time working in the retailindustry and I understand those issues can be difficult.We are not dealing with issues that are black and white.There is a whole range of grey areas. There are noabsolutes, and we must be careful with the concepts weleave in our wake, because they are all, at the end of theday, sensitive and personal and in some cases quiteintrusive, and therefore that much more difficult.

The point that came to the surface again and again inthe debate at the party room table was that the 1995legislation — that is, the law of the state as it currentlystands — was the product of a most extensive and evenarduous process. I well recall that countless hours wentinto the development process, both in the backroomunder the committee structure, and across the partylines, then throughout the community and ultimately inthe Parliament itself.

I pay tribute to the Honourable James Guest, a formermember of this chamber who served as the chairman ofthe bills committee. If he were here I am sure he wouldconfirm that an enormous amount of effort and energywent into the development of that 1995 bill. My ownleader, Peter Ryan, recalls he spent many hours as amember of that committee.



So the concepts in the legislative structure we have nowdid not happen by chance. They went through a mostarduous testing process before they became part of thelaw of the land. The National Party is not saying todaythat that law is perfect. That is not what the argument is.The law, as it is currently constructed, has obviouslyworked, and I point to the fact that there is nogroundswell of public concern out there in themarketplace and there is no avalanche of cases comingbefore the courts to gain clarification of those sensitiveissues or to challenge any particular term.

The National Party is not just running the simplisticline, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Its concern is a subtlevariation on that. The National Party is saying that if itis not broke, beware of any well-intentioned tinkeringthat might have the effect we are trying to avoid. I useas an instance the relevant example of the schoolcouncil. When this debate emerged across thecommunity, a number of people raised specificconcerns about employment by a school council, andthe extent to which discrimination should be seen to bewarranted in those circumstances. There were a numberof concerns, many of which were ill founded andunfortunate, and many the product of some cleverscaremongering.

I refer to the 1995 changes to the Equal OpportunityAct 1995, and particularly section 25 which is headed‘Exception — care of children’, which provides:

(1) Nothing in section 13 or 14 —

They specifically apply to discrimination inemployment:

applies to discrimination by an employer against anemployee or prospective employee if —

and the three grounds are:

(a) the employment involves the care, instruction orsupervision of children; …

Obviously it captures the school council circumstance.The second condition is:

(b) the employer genuinely believes that thediscrimination is necessary to protect the physical,psychological or emotional wellbeing of thechildren; …

I have no doubt that the grounds for such beliefs couldbe demonstrated in the areas where concern was beingexpressed.

Finally, under the current law discrimination would besanctioned if:

having regard to all the relevant circumstances, including, ifapplicable, the conduct of the employee or prospectiveemployee, the employer has a rational basis for that belief.

That section effectively addressed the bulk of theinquiries that came to our electorate offices. It statesthat school councils could discriminate where thediscrimination could be demonstrated to be made on arational basis. In those circumstances, discrimination isnot only tolerated but also anticipated. There are wideareas of grey, and there are no black and white issues.The real concern of National Party members was thatthe government, with the best of intentions, mayunravel the very thing that the former governmentfought so hard to achieve in 1995.

Another concern rests with the new grounds on whichdiscrimination is to be prohibited — namely, gender,identity and/or sexual orientation. They are not simpleconcepts — indeed, they are anything but simple. Ashas been acknowledged even in the chamber today, thenew grounds raise many consequential questions. Wesee that evidenced by the flurry of activity in thefinetuning of the bill prompted by an Independent’samendments in another place and the government’sattempts to accommodate those amendments. It wasonly in the last few hours of debate in the otherchamber that the position of the various parties could befinalised, because up until then they had a movingtarget which was not conducive to simple party roomdecisions.

I want it understood that that comment is not meant as acomplaint. We do not say that the fact the bill was amoving target should be criticised, because it could beargued that it was an example of the Parliament atwork. The Parliament has by way of its modus operandireached a compromise, and one could argue that it is aclassic example of a compromise being fashioned at theeleventh hour. The house has before it a deal that is aproduct of that compromise in another place. The flurryof activity in the other place underscored again andagain that Parliament is dealing with some very elusiveconcepts with some unpredictable consequences. Allthose circumstances added to the time and care neededto be devoted to the bill in the party rooms.

I will briefly address each of the new grounds ofprohibition in turn. The first is the attribute of sexualorientation. I will spend a moment or two addressingwhat that encompasses. I remind honourable membersthat the minister’s second-reading speech includes thenote that the act currently prohibits sexualdiscrimination on the basis of lawful sexual activity. Iagain refer to the act, which lists lawful sexual activityin section 6 under the heading ‘Attributes’.



I turn in that context to the comments of the formerAttorney-General, Jan Wade, when she introduced theoriginating bill, in which she made it very clear what itwas intended to cover. She states:

Discrimination which is based on a person’s lawful sexualactivity or imputed activity is prohibited under this bill. Manyhomosexual members of our community suffer discriminationon a daily basis, whether in employment or when trying togain access to goods and services or accommodation. Thisnew ground of prohibited discrimination is intended to protecthomosexuals, lesbians and heterosexuals or people perceivedto fall into a particular category from discriminatory actionsand provide an avenue of redress when such discriminationdoes occur. Lawful sexual activity does not includepaedophilia or bestiality.

Those comments would make the issue of lawful sexualactivity pretty clear to the casual observer. However,we are now told that the description is offensive tomany homosexual, lesbian and bisexual Victorians whobelieve it implies that they are more likely to beinvolved in immoral or unlawful sexual activity. We aretold that some groups in the community are not happywith the inference contained in the definition.Apparently the law is to be changed just because asection of the community is unhappy with the way thelaw is expressed.

I, for one, am not persuaded by that rationale forwholesale change of the law. As it happens, I am mostunhappy with Victoria’s gun laws. I, together withthousands of law-abiding shooting sports enthusiasts,resent the implication that we cannot be trusted with aself-loading .22 rifle or shotgun, that the communitymust be protected from our propensity to emulateMartin Bryant, and that we are all somehow massmurderers in disguise.

In my view being unhappy with the law is hardly arationale for substantive change to it. It is clear thatdiscrimination against homosexual, lesbian andbisexual Victorians — or for that matter heterosexualVictorians — on the basis of lawful sexuality activityalone is currently prohibited at law. That fact is notchallenged. Apparently the rationale for the bill is thatsome sections of the community are unhappy with theway the protection of the law is expressed as distinctfrom the question of whether that protection isprovided.

We could say, ‘Notwithstanding all that, andnotwithstanding that we consider that to be abelt-and-braces argument, why not accommodate thoseconcerns?’. That would take us full circle and bring usback to the issue that complicated the discussion in thefirst place. It introduces a whole range of new concepts

and thus the risk of unintended consequences, of whichI spoke earlier.

We started from the premise that simply having peopleunhappy with the way in which the law was expressedrather than the way in which it worked was not acompelling case for change, because there was at leastroom to argue from either side of the case. If there wereone single factor that won the day and influenced myattitude and that of my National Party colleagues to thebill, it probably came from the second ground ofdiscrimination now prohibited under the bill — that ofgender identity. The definition of gender identity needsto be looked at fairly carefully. It is spelt out in the bill,and it means:

(a) the identification by a person of one sex as a member ofthe other sex (whether or not the person is recognised assuch) —

(i) by assuming characteristics of the other sex,whether by means of medical intervention —

I want to come back to that —

style of dressing or otherwise; or

(ii) by living, or seeking to live, as a member of theother sex; or

(b) the identification by a person of indeterminate sex as amember of a particular sex (whether or not the person isrecognised as such) —

(i) by assuming characteristics of that sex, whether bymeans of medical intervention, style of dressing orotherwise; or

(ii) by living, or seeking to live, as a member of thatsex.

We are told in the second-reading speech that thatdefinition of gender identity is meant to cover all thosewhose gender identity is different from their physicalsex at birth. That is the group included within theumbrella description of transgender.

Three factors seemed to be important when that issuewas brought to the table. The first was that apart fromQueensland — do not ask me why! — every otherjurisdiction in Australia has effectively included thetransgender group among those that should be protectedagainst discrimination. Although we may claim wehave a mortgage on wisdom it was likely to be hard tosustain the line that we were the ones who were rightand everybody else, apart from our Queenslandcolleagues, was wrong. That was a compellingargument.

Secondly, although it could be and was argued thatmost people to be included in the generic category of



transgender would have been and were protected underthe existing law, it was clear that one group, albeit asmall group, had been not included in that protection.They had fallen between the cracks, as the HonourableCarlo Furletti said; that group was those born ofindeterminate sex.

If any group in the community should be entitled to afair go surely it is that group caught in a physical no-gozone that must be put near the top of the list if we are tohave any compassion. That was a major factor in theNational Party’s response, because the bill clearlyprotects a group that did not enjoy protection under theexisting law.

The final factor that determined the party’s stance mayhave been the most persuasive — that is, a recognitionof how painful that sort of discrimination must be forall those who face it in their everyday lives. I freelyadmit that I am unable to imagine what thatdiscrimination must be like, but it must cause anguishand despair when an individual is constantly remindedthat he or she is different in a basic way.

If we were genuine in our efforts to promote and pursuetolerance across society we must surely understand thatthose unfortunate enough to be caught in a group orclass subjected to that discrimination and stigma are notthere by personal choice, but rather through the lotteryof nature — the same lottery that thankfully makes usall different.

Some sobering comments were made when we, sittingaround the table, were reminded that there but for thegrace of God goes each of us. Although we areconcerned about the suggested changes to the EqualOpportunity Act in that they may quite inadvertentlycomplicate or undermine the existing law, the NationalParty has formally resolved it is a worthwhile risk givenits view that tolerance towards the differences in othersis a mark of a civilised society and is something worthstriving for. Therefore, the National Party does notoppose the bill.

Hon. E. C. CARBINES (Geelong) — I am pleasedto support the Equal Opportunity (Gender Identity andSexual Orientation) Bill. It furthers the Bracksgovernment’s commitment to strengthen the EqualOpportunity Act to ensure that all Victorians haveequality of opportunity and are free fromdiscrimination. The bill makes it illegal in Victoria todiscriminate on the basis of gender identity or sexualorientation.

It is a sad fact of life that members of the gay, lesbianand transgender communities in Victoria today often

face discrimination in the conduct of their daily lives.That discrimination, which can take many and variedforms, has its basis in ignorance, suspicion, intolerance,fear and prejudice. Last year, as the HonourableGlenyys Romanes said, the Victorian Gay and LesbianRights Lobby conducted a survey of more than 900 ofits members about the discrimination and abuse theyexperience in Victoria. The findings of the survey arereported in Enough is Enough. On page 1 the reportcites the categories of abuse or discriminationexperienced by survey participants. They includeassault or harassment in a public place, employment,education, provision of goods and services, medicaltreatment, dealings with police or other lawenforcement people, parenting, club membership, andtenancy.

The list stands as an indictment of Victoria today and isthe reason the Equal Opportunity Act had to beamended. The bill will send a clear and unequivocalmessage to all Victorians that discrimination on thebasis of sexual orientation and gender identity is illegalin Victoria.

At the launch of Enough is Enough the co-convenor ofthe Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby,Mr Kenton Miller, gave an impassioned speech andgraphic account of overt discrimination that he hasexperienced in Victoria as a gay man. He talked aboutregular bashings, verbal abuse and about rejection byfriends and family. He also explored the insidioushidden discrimination that makes it virtually impossiblefor many gay, lesbian and transgender people to beaccepted in society and to have their relationshipstreated with the same respect as members of theheterosexual community.

The discrimination that gay, lesbian and transgenderpeople experience often starts early in life. I wasinterested in the contribution of the HonourableGlenyys Romanes when she referred to the findings ofthe Australian Institute of Criminology. She talkedabout the importance of schools in an educative processaimed at encouraging tolerance. As a former secondaryschool teacher I can attest that adolescents who arestruggling to come to terms with their own emergingsexuality can be quick to pass judgment on others whothey see as different from them, and that verbal abuse iscommonplace in our schools. Sometimes, mostregrettably, that abuse can turn into physical abuse and,sometimes, violence. It is sad that the tendency todiscriminate sometimes starts at primary school whereyoung children quickly learn that to call somebody gayis a put-down, a perjorative, yet they have no idea whatthey are saying.



Members of the gay, lesbian and transgendercommunity are marginalised in Victorian society. Thatis evidenced in the incidents of discrimination tabled inEnough is Enough.

The Equal Opportunity Act now affords protectionfrom discrimination for the gay and lesbian community,but it does not do so for the transgender community.When reading Enough is Enough I was disturbed tolearn of the level of discrimination faced daily. I shalldetail some of that. It is reported on page 3 of the reportthat transgender participants in the survey reported theywere twice as likely as other men and three times morelikely than other women to report discrimination intheir dealings with the police. That discrimination mayinclude entrapment and harassment, particularly in theline of police questioning.

Page 2 of the report reveals that transgenderparticipants were more likely to report having beenthreatened or bashed than other men or women. Enoughis Enough also found that as a result of their experienceof discrimination and abuse, transgender members weremost likely to suffer from an invisibility complex in thecommunity which translated into depression and a lowlevel of self-esteem.

The second-reading speech details that it is estimatedthat some 95 per cent of transgender people lose theirjobs while going through their transition. That starkstatistic alone is enough reason for this house to bedebating the Equal Opportunity (Gender Identity andSexual Orientation) Bill today. I understand that thisbill has the support of the Victorian Gay and LesbianRights Lobby and Transgender Victoria. As a memberof Parliament I, like most other members in this house,received a letter from the Victorian Gay and LesbianRights Lobby seeking my support for this bill. I ampleased to be able to demonstrate my support byspeaking in favour of the bill in the house on behalf ofthe government.

As a member for Geelong Province I receivedcorrespondence from a constituent of mine who is amember of Geelong’s transgender community. Shewanted to stress to me the importance of this bill to thetransgender community and to seek my support for itspassage through the upper house. I replied to myconstituent that as a member of the Bracks governmentI was proud to support the Equal Opportunity (GenderIdentity and Sexual Orientation) Bill and would bevoting in favour of it when it came to the upper house.However, I advised my constituent that the bill alsorequired the support of the opposition members, whosenumbers mean that they will determine the fate of thisbill. I suggested that she contact the Honourable Ian

Cover, the other member for Geelong Province, to seekhis support as she had done mine. My constituentcontacted me again to thank me for my support andadvice and to say that she had acted on it.

I am very pleased to learn from the speakers from theLiberal and National parties that they do not intend tooppose the bill, and that will ensure its passage intolegislation. We have heard other speakers talk about thefact that the passage of this bill will bring Victoria intoline with all other states and territories exceptQueensland, and that has to be a good thing; we shouldnot lag behind on these things. The Equal Opportunity(Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation) Bill sends avery straightforward message to all Victorians — thatis, discrimination on the basis of gender identity andsexual orientation is illegal in our state.

At the launch of Enough is Enough Mr Miller spokevery passionately about his experiences. I would like toquote from his speech, which I downloaded from theInternet. In his conclusion he said:

It would be nice to think that, in the year 2000, we lived in aworld without discrimination or abuse — but we don’t.

This bill is all about fundamental human rights to whichevery person in this state is entitled. I congratulate theAttorney-General on his work on the bill and wish it aspeedy passage. I commend the bill to the house.

Hon. A. P. OLEXANDER (Silvan) — I am verypleased to associate myself with the debate on the bill. Iam very grateful and proud that my party has given methe opportunity to help place on the record the positionof the Liberal opposition on this piece of legislation.When I started to think about how I should approachthis bill, a quote that I first read as a young man — Ithink I was 16 years of age and it was about 1980 —kept coming back to me. The quote was this:

It was the duty of Liberals to study … and to tread as ever, thepaths of progress. In doing so, they would make mistakes butthey would leave the world on the whole a better place thanthey found it.

That quote came from one of the great early Liberals,Alfred Deakin. It inspired me then and it still guides menow. I think that quote is very appropriate in this typeof debate where we are talking about issues of humanrights and it should guide the way that this chamberdeals with a bill such as this.

It is important to cover some of the issues that are oftenmisunderstood when talking about law reform in areaslike this. The first thing I would like to tackle is thequestion of what it means to be a transgender person,who are transgender people and what are their issues.



To pass legislation on transgender people the chamberneeds to be aware in some detail about the people whowill be affected by this legislation.

The term ‘transgender’ is an umbrella term andincludes transsexuals, cross-dressers and people of thecategory known as intersex or of indeterminate gender.Transgender people are real people living everydaylives with real concerns. Consequently, like the rest ofsociety they deserve protection against discrimination.That applies to everybody in society and it shouldcertainly apply to these people. Having a genderidentity disorder is not a flippant or trivial choice. Thatis another common misapprehension people have whenwe talk about transgender or gender identity issues. It isnot a trivial choice and it is not something peoplepursue on a whim. It is an internationally recognisedmedical dysphoria and is referred to in the UnitedStates Diagnostic Services Manual IV. It is recognisedinternationally by psychologists, and some evidenceexists that there are biological originators to thecondition. The Melbourne Gender Identity DisorderClinic at the Monash Medical Centre concludes thatthere is evidence that gender identity disorder isbiologically caused.

It really does not matter how it is caused and whether itis a psychological or biological issue or a combinationof both. What matters is that transgender people do notfeel that the social role and gender assigned to them atbirth is the appropriate role for them. They have agenuine and deeply felt issue of self-identity.Transsexuals in particular can identify as being trappedin the wrong body. This is a very important point tounderstand.

Transgender people are arguably one of the mostmarginalised and discriminated groups in thecommunity. As other honourable members have donein this debate, I would like to briefly share with thehouse statistics from two recent publications. Othermembers have quoted from Enough is Enough, whichwas published recently by the Victorian Gay andLesbian Rights Lobby. That report included thefollowing statistics: 22 per cent of transgender peopleare unemployed; 50 per cent had experienced problemswith police, an alarmingly high number; 21 per centhad been bashed in a public place and even morereported public threats and verbal abuse. These arestaggering numbers. This is an alarming thing to beoccurring in society. The report also stated that 56 percent of transgender people had experienced realproblems related to the provision of goods andservices — in contracting for business, doing trade andbeing served in the ordinary context of a business or

retail environment. Those statistics are unacceptable ina civilised and democratic society.

I would also like to quote from some researchconducted by Roberta Perkins, a masters degree studentfrom New South Wales, who in 1994 published anAustralia-wide research paper entitled HIV/AIDS —Needs of Transgender People. Ms Perkins found that95 per cent of transgender people lose their jobs whenthey make the transition from one gender to the other.Almost universally transgender people are experiencingdiscrimination upon transition. The study also foundthat 38 per cent of transgender people attempt suicide.What an extraordinary statistic! It is much higher thanthe percentage for any other cohort in the populationincluding young regional and rural men, a group thathas received a lot of attention as it should, but so tooshould this statistic.

A total of 52 per cent of transgender people becameisolated from their communities and those around them;and 27 per cent had moved out of Victoria and intoother jurisdictions such as Western Australia, NewSouth Wales, the Australian Capital Territory and otherplaces where the issue of discrimination againsttransgender people had been addressed. That is a verylarge number. In her report Ms Perkins states:

This figure represents a depressing picture of transgenders asvictimised by a society insensitive to their needs. Well over athird of the sample had attempted suicide … low self-esteemare by-products of an almost continuous discrimination andsocial ostracism by others in society, from professionals,bureaucrats, law enforcers and employers to their families,neighbours and the average person on the street. Acombination of social ostracism, emotional deprivation andfamily rejection leads to a desperately lonely existence whichin turn often leads … to suicide.

It is timely that the bill is being debated. It is veryappropriate that Parliament is taking legislative actionto protect transgender people in society. The statisticsare alarming, even shocking, and they must beaddressed. It is the role of government to address suchissues. The debate is about real people who have reallives who are facing enormous obstacles anddifficulties. Anything that can be done to alleviate thoseissues for them should be done.

Having said that, I want to put on the record that I am avery proud member of a party that has a tremendousrecord on equal opportunity in this state. It was theHamer Liberal government that introduced Victoria’sfirst Equal Opportunity Act in 1977. That act dealtpredominantly with equal opportunity for women andgender discrimination. It was the Hamer governmentthat ensured that homosexuality was effectively



decriminalised in Victoria with amendments to theCrimes Act.

Of course it was the Kennett government that in 1995brought in the ground-breaking Equal Opportunity Actcovering for the first time sexual orientation as a groundfor discrimination. It was also under the Kennettgovernment that the important Equal OpportunityCommission report entitled Same Sex Relationshipsand the Law was published in 1998 under thestewardship of Jan Wade, former Attorney-General. Itwas Jan Wade who in 1998 initiated the comprehensivewhole-of-government review that aimed to ensure thatall legislation in Victoria complied with equalopportunity legislation.

The Liberal Party can hold its head high on equalopportunity issues in this state. While Labor often likesto make a loud noise and beat the drum over its socialprogressiveness and social reforms, it is the LiberalParty in Victoria that has the real runs on the board. Ibelieve the instances I have just recounted to thechamber demonstrate that fact.

Hon. R. F. Smith — It was seven years you had toget the runs — seven years! What did you do?

Hon. A. P. OLEXANDER — Mr Smith interjectsand states — —

Hon. R. F. Smith interjected.

Hon. A. P. OLEXANDER — He obviously wasnot listening to what I had to say, Mr Acting President,because in 1995 it was the Liberal Party that introducedthe principal act, the act Labor proposes to amend todaywith this bill. Perhaps Mr Smith should pay moreattention to the debate. If he did he would understandmore about the history of equal opportunity. As I wassaying, while Labor does like to make a loud noiseabout its social responsibility — —

Hon. R. F. Smith — You make it sound as thoughthis is your legislation.

Hon. A. P. OLEXANDER — It is basically ourlegislation but with a few important changes.

Hon. R. F. Smith — Oh, how could you stand upand say that?

Hon. A. P. OLEXANDER — I will go back to aquote. I refer to a speech given in Adelaide by AlfredDeakin on 29 March 1906. It states:

The Liberal Party has been distinguished by two or threeleading principles. It has sought social justice by trusting thepeople and developing the powers of self-government …

Against the Liberals is gathered a party much less defined,which has really no positive program, and which adopts anattitude of denial and negation — a party which may be fairlycalled the anti-Liberal party … The Labor Party is not distinctfrom the Liberal Party in regard to many questions involvingsocial justice … The Liberal Party does not fear to use thesocial powers and authorities which legislation andadministration present.

That is very obvious in the legislative recordsurrounding equal opportunity in Victoria.

I turn to the bill, which simply proposes to add twofurther attributes as the basis of lodging anantidiscrimination claim, and broadens out anexemption in section 66 of the principal act regardingcompeting in sporting activities.

The first attribute is that of sexual orientation. ‘Sexualorientation’ is defined in the bill as includinghomosexuality, lesbianism and bisexuality as well asheterosexuality, and is an addition to the existingattribute of lawful sexual activity.

The second attribute is that of gender identity, and thechange extends coverage to transsexuals, cross-dressersand intersex people. The amendments moved last weekin the lower house are now a part of the bill beingdebated today. They include two further importantchanges. The definition of ‘gender identity’ has beenamended to include what can only be described as abona fide test. The words ‘on a bona fide basis’ havebeen incorporated into the definition. An additionallawful discrimination exemption that specificallyrelates to employment has now been included. Otherspeakers in the debate have defined how that clause willoperate.

The bill contains many serious deficiencies. Liberalmembers have noted those on equal opportunitygrounds and I propose to take the chamber throughthem. It concerns the Liberal Party that from an earlystage there were two major deficiencies in the originalbill introduced by the former government. The firstrelated to intersex people, who are people ofindeterminate gender who make a choice to live aseither male or female. However, following discussionswith intersex people the opposition has been advisedthat some people choose not to live exclusively aseither male or female. Many decide to live the way thatthey were born, as intersex individuals. It is very clearthat the bill does not cover or protect them in any way.Those people are born with chromosomal variations.They are born into a situation and deserve protectionunder a bill such as the one before the house. In thewords of the Leader of the National Party and mycolleague the Honourable Carlo Furletti, they do seem



to have fallen between the cracks and should not have.They should have been included in a bill such as this.

The second concern relates to a somewhat vague andsubjective sporting exemption. The opposition believesthe government could have more adequately coveredthat issue by looking at other jurisdictions such asWestern Australia, where the Court government hasinserted a test associated with its legislative frameworkon the basis of competitive advantage. The wording ofthe clause in the bill the house is considering is vagueand open to misinterpretation. It would have been betterif the legislative example set in Western Australia hadbeen followed.

I turn to the process that has brought the bill before thehouse today. Other speakers have touched on it but Iwill go into it in some detail. Honourable memberspresent may not be aware of the body blow that wasinflicted on the transgender community when theAttorney-General, at the behest of the Premier,withdrew the unamended bill on Thursday, 2 June. TheAttorney-General claimed that the withdrawal of thebill was so that the government could further consultwith the Independents, specifically the Independentmembers for Mildura and Gippsland East, on areas ofparticular concern they had.

We in the opposition understand that this often stormyconsultation process concluded with transgendercommunity representatives accepting the bona fide testand the further employment exemptions after atremendous amount of pressure was applied to them bymembers of the government, and by their reckoningand as they advise me, by departmental officers. It is nosecret that Kenton Miller from the Victorian Gay andLesbian Rights Lobby and Transgender Victoria wouldhave preferred the house to be debating the original billthat was in place before June, but it is not.

Two important amendments have been made as a resultof pressure placed by the honourable member forMildura and the honourable member for Gippsland Eastin the other place upon the Premier, and the Premiercaved in. The Premier said he would convene anotherround of consultations and get agreement around thetable. Government members who were part of thatconsultation process decided to put pressure on thecommunity negotiators, those from TransgenderVictoria in particular, and say to them, ‘Look, you haveto compromise on these Russell Savage amendmentsbecause if you don’t the likelihood is that there will beno bill at all’. They were presented with an ultimatum,‘Accept these amendments and the bona fide test orperhaps run the risk of having no bill at all’.

That is an inappropriate use of the consultation process.It puts the lie to the way members of the Labor Partywax long and lyrical about their party’s desire toconsult with communities. It is unprincipled and shouldnot have happened.

I turn to some problems with the amendmentsthemselves.


Hon. A. P. OLEXANDER — The bill nowincludes a ‘bona fide’ test for transgender people. Ihave been advised by well-respected people in the legalprofession that no such subjective test applies.


The ACTING PRESIDENT(Hon. G. B. Ashman) — Order! The house can dowithout the interjections across the chamber.

Hon. A. P. OLEXANDER — I note the interjectionof the Honourable Bob Smith that there are allegationsthat he sexually harassed somebody, but I do not thinkthose allegations have anything to do with the bill weare debating today.

Hon. R. F. Smith — On a point of order, Mr ActingPresident, I object to that comment implying that I havebeen either charged or convicted of sexual harassment.If Mr Olexander wishes to make an issue of it he shoulddo so by way of substantive motion and give me thechance to debate it, otherwise he should withdraw.

Hon. A. P. OLEXANDER — On the point oforder, Mr Acting President, I made no such allegation. Idid not imply there had been charges. All I said wasthat it was inappropriate for Mr Smith by way ofinterjection to be canvassing issues about allegations ofsexual harassment. It is not the issue we are debatingtoday. I believe there is no point of order.

Hon. R. F. Smith — On a further point of order,Mr Acting President, I do not believe that is exactlywhat he said. He made mention of my being chargedwith sexual harassment, and I demand that it bewithdrawn.

Hon. A. P. OLEXANDER — On the point oforder, Mr Acting President, Hansard will show I madeno such allegation.

The ACTING PRESIDENT(Hon. G. B. Ashman) — Order! If Mr Olexander hasmade the allegation he should withdraw. If he does notbelieve he made the statement — I cannot recall the



precise words — there is nothing to withdraw. I willleave it up to the discretion of the honourable member.If he believes he used the words he referred to in hissubmission on the point of order, he should proceed. If,however, he believes he may have used the wordsMr Smith suggested he used, he should withdraw.

Hon. A. P. OLEXANDER — I shall deal with theproblems the opposition has identified with theamendments that have been introduced in the bill. Thebill now includes a ‘bona fide’ test for transgenderpeople. I have been advised by well-respected peoplewho operate in the legal profession that no suchsubjective test applies to any other group in Victoria orin legislation. That is an important point. If that is thecase, and I stand to be corrected, what an outrageousand offensive situation it is to have a bona fide testapply to a group in equal opportunity legislation of thisnature. It is offensive and will be interpreted as being soby many people in the community.

The bona fide test sets up a barrier which did not existin the original bill and which adds to the traumatransgender people are already suffering. It means thatthe Equal Opportunity Commission has to subjectivelydetermine who is bona fide and who is not. That raisesprivacy issues for people who may seek protectionunder the act and may be a major disincentive to peoplewho wish to seek the protection of the act.

The opposition has significant concerns with theadequate notice provisions in the exemptions relating toemployment. Again it is a subjective term. What isadequate notice? Is it three weeks, two months, sixmonths or two years; or, more importantly, willadequate notice change from circumstance tocircumstance? It provides another opportunity for thosewho oppose the equal opportunity legislation to argueagainst such applications being upheld by thecommission.

More extraordinary is that the employment provisionshave been lifted almost word for word from the federalDisability Discrimination Act. The employmentexemptions range through a number of issues aboutfinancial impact on a business, the feasibility ofaccommodating a person and the cost and other effectson a business, such as loss of profit and so on. Thefederal provisions have just been dropped into an actdealing with able-bodied, fully functioning people. Onehas to ask on equal opportunity grounds whether that isa good example for the government to be setting. Theseemployment exemptions do not apply to any othergroup under the act. There are generic employmentexemptions in the Equal Opportunity Act, but what thegovernment has done at the behest of the Independents

is introduce a raft of provisions that come out of thefederal Disability Discrimination Act.

Transgender people are not disabled, they areable-bodied, fully functioning, vital people who interactwith the general community without requiringprotection for a disability — something they have donefor a long period. What they require protection from isdiscrimination, which is what this bill is about.

The government, through the insertion of the specificemployment exemptions dealing with the costs to theemployer, feasibility, accommodation and financialimpacts upon the employer’s business opens up aPandora’s box that potentially could destroy the abilityof the bill to protect transgender Victorians from legalprotection against discrimination in their employment.That Pandora’s box will be looked at closely by thosewho seek to deny transgender people their rights.

I shall quote from a letter I received on 24 August fromthe co-convener of Transgender Victoria, KayleenWhite, when we were discussing the issue of theamendments, what they meant and what potentialimpact they might have. She states:

… the various issues you raised are possible triggers forpeople to attempt to discriminate against transgender people,but their discrimination must stand up before the commission.Ultimately whether the employment exception is applicableor not is determined by the EOC.

That is true. The Equal Opportunity Commission willhave to determine those issues. However, theexemption and the insertion of the amendment willopen up a whole new range of issues upon whichpeople can base arguments for denying transgenderpeople their rights. She goes on to say:

Probably the main issue we really need to discuss is whetherthis clause enshrines discrimination. The short answer to thatis yes.

In discussions I have had with the Victorian Gay andLesbian Rights Lobby, Transgender Victoria andSeahorse Victoria it was acknowledged that pressurewas applied to them to accept the amendments in thebill. They would have preferred to have a bill debatedin the chamber and passed into law that did not includethe offensive bona fide test or the offensiveemployment exemptions. However, that is what thegovernment has delivered.

It is clear that these communities experience some ofthe most extreme forms of discrimination in seekingemployment and in the workplace. The exemptions, inparticular, will potentially allow employers todiscriminate if other employees refuse to use facilities



within the business that need to be shared by atransgender employee and the employer needs toestablish new or duplicate facilities; or if suppliers orclients of the business refuse to work with or transactbusiness with a transgender employee, which may leadto added costs or loss of business to the employer.

Clearly in both instances the insertion of thegovernment’s amendments, which were supported bythe Independents, would lead to discrimination byfellow employees, suppliers or clients and could lead tolawful discrimination against a transgender person byhis or her potential employers. The government hasestablished — and secured agreement from the affectedcommunities, at least publicly — a worryingpotentiality. The government will have to wear theconsequences of that during the next three or four yearsas the act is put into practice.

I put on record that the Liberal Party is committed totrue and genuine consultation with all communitygroups, and the transgender community and the gay andlesbian communities are no exception to that rule.Almost from the day I was elected I opened up aconstructive dialogue with the transgender lobby group,Transgender Victoria, the Victorian Gay and LesbianRights Lobby and Seahorse Victoria, arguably thelargest transgender and cross-dressing organisation inVictoria. The discussions we have had over the monthshave been productive and informative. I have beenmade aware of many issues that I was not previouslyaware of. I have made numerous friends in thetransgender community — people who have been at theforefront of transgender reform, and people who havesuffered directly from discrimination. I hope thosefriends will remain friends for life.

I put on the record my congratulations and thanks topeople such as Kayleen White and Sally Goldner fromTransgender Victoria, who played a very important partin briefing my colleagues in the Liberal Party andmembers of the National Party on the issues associatedwith transgender living and issues associated with thebill. I also thank Paula Corbett and Lauren Christopherfrom Seahorse Victoria, who provided much valuableadvice and a very interesting perspective on thegovernment’s amendments. I also thank Kenton Miller,co-convenor of the Victorian Gay and Lesbian RightsLobby, for sharing his thoughts and experiencesthroughout the process. They are all very committedand dedicated people who deserve to be congratulated.Their sheer guts and determination have inspired me tocontinue to press for legislative reform.

Notwithstanding the opposition’s concerns about theshortcomings of the bill, it will not be opposed by the

opposition. The bill is an important step for transgenderpeople in particular, but much remains to be done in thefuture. Two members opposite can be sure that theopposition will closely monitor the methods of thegovernment’s dealings and consultations with theaffected communities. The opposition will not let theissue rest. We will closely watch the application of thelegislation in practice, particularly the new bona fidetest and the government’s employment exemptions. Iwish the bill a speedy passage.

Hon. D. G. HADDEN (Ballarat) — I support theEqual Opportunity (Gender Identity and SexualOrientation) Bill. The purpose of the bill, contained inclause 1, is to prohibit discrimination on the basis ofgender identity or sexual orientation. The objectives, asset out in section 3 of the principal act, are to eliminate,so far as possible, discrimination against people byprohibiting discrimination on the basis of variousattributes and to promote recognition and acceptance ofeveryone’s right to equality of opportunity in society.

Clause 4 sets out new definitions of gender identity andsexual orientation that are to be inserted in section 4 ofthe principal act. The attribute of ‘lawful sexualactivity’, as contained in the principal act, alreadyprohibits discrimination on the basis of a person’ssexuality. However, the use of the term ‘lawful sexualactivity’ has been criticised by certain groups because itfocuses on sexual practices. Members of the gay andlesbian communities find the term offensive becausethey believe it implies that homosexual people are morelikely to engage in unlawful or immoral sexual activity.

The bill will add the two words ‘sexual orientation’ tothe list of attributes in the act, which is defined to meanhomosexuality, including lesbianism, bisexuality orheterosexuality. The attribute of ‘lawful sexual activity’will remain in the principal act because the attributeprohibits discrimination on the basis of a person’sprivate life beyond their sexual orientation — forinstance, those working as prostitutes.

Clause 4 will add the attribute of gender identity to thelist of attributes in the principal act, and that will makeit unlawful to discriminate against a range of peoplewhose gender identity does not match their birth sexand includes transsexuals, transvestites, cross-dressersand hermaphrodites. The Honourable Elaine Carbinespointed out that an estimated 95 per cent of people whomake the transition from one sex to the other lose theirjobs because of that transition.

The attribute of gender identity will apply to people ofone sex who identify on a bona fide basis as a memberof the other sex or who seek to live as members of the



other sex. It will also apply to people of indeterminategender who identify on a bona fide basis as a memberof a particular sex. The words ‘on a bona fide basis’have been included in the bill as a result of agovernment amendment in the other place. Thatamendment was developed following extensivenegotiations by the Attorney-General’s parliamentarysecretary, Mr Wynne, with the honourable member forMildura in the other place and Transgender Victoria.The inclusion of the words ‘on a bona fide basis’ in thedefinition of gender identity is intended to limit theprotection of the act to persons who genuinely assumethe characteristics of another sex. As honourablemembers know, the words ‘bona fide’ mean ‘in goodfaith’.

Clause 6 inserts proposed section 27B into the principalact. It provides that it is not unlawful for an employer todiscriminate against a person on the basis of genderidentity in certain circumstances. This exceptionprovision will probably become known as theemployment exception.

Clause 7 amends section 66(1) of the principal act toprovide that it is not unlawful to exclude a person onthe basis of that person’s gender identity fromparticipating in a competitive sporting activity in whichthe strength, stamina or physique of competitors isrelevant.

I return to the employment provisions and cite ahypothetical example of how the provisions wouldwork. Case study no. 1 concerns a person named Ken,who is a transgender person employed as a shopassistant in a small bakery. Two years into hisemployment Ken wishes to commence hormonetreatment and to change his appearance to that of afemale. He advises his boss of his intention andmentions that the effects of hormone treatment and thechanges to his appearance will be gradual butnoticeable over the next six to eight months. Soonafterwards Ken’s employer cuts his hours and transfershim away from the shop into the factory. Ken enjoyscustomer contact and is upset by this move. Hecomplains about his treatment but is told by hissupervisor that nothing can be done.

Ken makes a complaint of discrimination on the basisof gender identity to the Equal OpportunityCommission. Ken’s employer claims his actions werereasonable. In this example the employer has hadadequate notice. Ken has told the employer before anychange is to occur and explained that the change inappearance will be gradual. There is no directadditional cost to the employer of continuing to employ

Ken in the shop. It is feasible for the employer toaccommodate Ken’s change in appearance.

Given Ken’s customer skills and willingness tosensitively discuss his change of appearance withregular customers, the financial impact on the employeris likely to be minimal. The employer’s actions havehad a major impact on Ken. His hours have beenreduced and he is now unable to meet all his monthlyfinancial commitments. Psychologically he has beenembarrassed and devalued as a person and has lostcontact with regular customers who had becomefriendly with him over the past two years. Theemployment exception proposed in clause 6 would notapply in Ken’s case and the complaint would behandled by the Equal Opportunity Commission andwould go to conciliation.

The second case study of my hypothetical case studiesunder the employment provision — —

Hon. D. McL. Davis — On a point of order,Mr Acting President, the honourable member is clearlyquoting from a document and I wonder whether thatdocument is sourced. It is a hypothetical example, but Iask whether the honourable member will make itavailable to the house.

The ACTING PRESIDENT(Hon. G. B. Ashman) — Order! It may be appropriatefor the honourable member to provide the source of thedocument. It may be the member may wish to maintainthe confidentiality of the person being referred to, butthe source of the document could be useful.

Hon. D. G. HADDEN — I would need to keep theperson’s identity confidential. This is a hypotheticalcase study of an example of how the employmentexception would operate. Disclosing the source maybreach some confidentiality.

Hon. D. McL. Davis — It is a Labor Party source.

The ACTING PRESIDENT(Hon. G. B. Ashman) — Order! I understoodMs Hadden to say it was a hypothetical example, butshe now indicates it is a real person. Perhaps thehonourable member could indicate whether it is ahypothetical case or whether it is a real case and a realperson. If it is a real person the house would like toknow the source without actually identifying theindividual involved.

Hon. D. G. HADDEN — They are hypotheticalcases.



Hon. D. McL. Davis — On the point of order,Mr Acting President, I do not think that is satisfactory.The honourable member should be required to providethe title of the document and the source so that thehouse knows the substance of the document andwhether it can be relied on in its deliberations.

Hon. J. M. Madden — On the point of order,Mr Acting President, Ms Hadden has indicated it is ahypothetical circumstance, but the source of thedocument may bear on the issue of privacy relating tothose who supplied the information. The sensitivity ofthe matter is not hypothetical, but the source fromwhich it has been obtained is a privacy matter.

The ACTING PRESIDENT(Hon. G. B. Ashman) — Order! On the point of order,if it is an issue of privacy and it has come from anorganisation, Mr Davis is entitled to know the source ofthe document. However, if it comes from a source thatmay identify the individual as being the hypotheticalcase study, the honourable member may care toindicate whether that is the case. If it is from anorganisation the honourable member should reveal tothe house the source of the document.

Hon. D. G. HADDEN — Mr Acting President,given the discussion that has ensued I am not sure that Ifully understood what you were saying.

The ACTING PRESIDENT(Hon. G. B. Ashman) — Order! What I am suggestingis that if the document is from an organisation it isappropriate for you to reveal the source of thatorganisation as being the source of the document. If,however, the document has been provided by anindividual and that individual is the hypothetical personto whom you are referring, you need to indicate thatthat is the case, that the hypothetical person is thesource person in which case the house would respectthat confidentiality.

Hon. D. G. HADDEN — It is sourced from aperson who wants her identity to remain confidential.The case study is an example of how the employmentexception would operate. Transgender people arenormal people with family, children and friends andshould not be discriminated against on the basis of anyof the various attributes.

I now give two examples of persons who have suffereddiscrimination as transgender people. I will cite theirfirst names only and not their surnames out of respectfor their privacy. The first example states:

Pippa’s experiences show some of the worst that can happento transgender people, including threats of physical assaults.

Although a competent technician, with nearly 20 years ofcontinuous experience in six positions, transitioning two yearsago led to loss of her job. Since then Pippa has applied for147 jobs, attended 36 interviews, has been offered two jobsand has only worked one year. (She has had one job offerlater withdrawn). She was hired by one company in January,but was told that her services were no longer required at thestart of March. Pippa is very lucid on the difficulties ofapplying for jobs, including the need to change résumés(particularly previous referees), and the difficulties for atransgender person to seek accommodation when a previouslandlord is behaving in a strongly prejudicial manner andwhen suffering the effects of not being employed.

Pippa can make more information available about herexperiences on request, but that is not necessary.

The second example is about Michael:

Michael has worked in many fields, not always needing touse his professional qualifications in education, librarianshipand psychology. After transitioning, he moved to anotheremployer as the employer he had been working for at the timesent him out to jobs on the basis of him being female, butclients would see him as clearly male. He now works incommunity services, where he is accepted as a male, eventhough some people know his past.

In summary, the Equal Opportunity (Gender Identityand Sexual Orientation) Bill is important. It is timelyand necessary in a fair and just pluralist society. Icommend the bill to the house.

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS (East Yarra) — Theopposition does not oppose the Equal Opportunity(Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation) Bill. Mycomments will complement a number of previousspeakers, including the Honourable Carlo Furletti, whohas given a good exposition of the bill and made anumber of points the opposition wants to make aboutthe bill. I also compliment the Honourable DianneHadden on her obviously sincere comments on the bill.I was somewhat concerned that she did not reveal thedocument she referred to. I accept the ActingPresident’s comments that if it was from anorganisation she should reveal it; if it was from anindividual, one needs to have the appropriate degree ofcare.

Hon. D. G. Hadden — And sensitivity.

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS — Absolutely. Nonetheless,I expressed my concern for the obvious reason that Ifelt it was a document she was commenting on in thehouse and therefore the house had every right toexpress concern about its source.

I also compliment the Honourable Andrew Olexanderon his contribution to the debate which has made somenew ground in this house in terms of the depth of hiscontribution and his obvious knowledge of the issues



involved in this area, and also his knowledge of manyindividuals who are transgender or would be dealt withby the bill. His knowledge has been helpful to theopposition and has placed its understanding of some ofthose issues on a firm footing. I compliment him inparticular on his contribution.

The bill follows a long line of bills. It is important toplace on the record that in the 1970s the Liberal Partyunder the Hamer government introduced the first equalopportunity bills into this state. Indeed, it was mypredecessor, the Honourable Haddon Storey, who didmuch of the background work to those bills and made astrong contribution at that time.

I also want to pick up a point made by the HonourableCarlo Furletti that the bill grows out of the 1995 act thatwas introduced by the former Attorney-General, theHonourable Jan Wade — an act that has stood the testof time and been able to evolve in a constructive way,as one would expect in this vital area of law concerningthe fairness in society. It is important to tie that back tosome strong Liberal principles in this area.

It is important also to realise that the bill is aboutenabling people to maximise their potential in ourcommunity, both in employment and in other areas, butto do that in a way that enables people’s potential, skillsand attributes to come out to the greatest extent. As amatter of principle, people should not be discriminatedagainst on the basis of gender identity and the othercharacteristics that are listed in the bill and the principalact, which has a comprehensive coverage of manyforms of discrimination. The act will continue to evolveover time and will produce an impact that will makeour society fairer. That is the crucial background.

It is not my intention to go through the bill in forensicdetail, but I want to make some comments aboutchanges that were made to it in the lower house. I makethose comments genuinely in the context that people onthis side of the house want to see a fairer community.We want to see the bill and the legislation achieving thebest possible outcomes in our community.

A number of speakers in the other place, includingMr Andrew McIntosh, the honourable member forKew, made excellent contributions to the backgroundof the bill, particularly about making sure it went asclose to achieving its aims as possible. It is unfortunatethat a number of changes were made to the bill at a latestage. The original bill was modified at the request of anumber of people. In particular, I refer to the sequenceof events that occurred after the bill had beenintroduced to the lower house. It is important to

understand the interplay between that event and thecommunity.

What occurred was unfortunate in many ways. Itinvolved Russell Savage, the Independent member forMildura in the other place, whom I do not criticise on apersonal level because his opinions on the bill aresincere and he has a view that is motivated by what hesees to be in the community interest. One can alwaysrespect individuals while disagreeing with particularviews they may hold. One can respect the bona fides oftheir position without necessarily agreeing with them. Itis my understanding that Mr Savage strongly indicatedhis views to the Premier and that at that point thePremier reversed the government’s stance on the billand withdrew it in an unhelpful way, only to laterintroduce modifications.

I place on record my concern that the Premierintroduced a bill that he was prepared to modify in away that reduced its effectiveness, and did that undersome influence. I believe it could be said that hedisplayed a lack of principle. I am concerned that thatevent has transpired. Again, I make it clear it is notMr Savage I am critical of, it is the Premier, whoclearly did not have the ability to stand up and state hisviews.

The bill was withdrawn and modified. Themodifications, as I said, have diluted the effectivenessof the bill and created confusion. The bona fide test thatis introduced in part of the bill is a difficult test legally,and the Honourable Carlo Furletti has made someuseful comments about that today.

The bona fide test will open up legal challenges andavenues of argument that will be novel, expensive andcumbersome, and they will dilute the effectiveness ofthe act. Honourable members should be under noillusions that the modifications are a response by thePremier to comments put to him. His decision tomodify the act in that unhelpful way will introducegreat uncertainty into the legislation. It will not help toachieve the aims and objectives of the act with whichboth sides of the house in this chamber agree. That is agreat pity. It augurs very poorly for the Parliament thatthe Premier is able to be influenced in that way. Iexpress my deep concern about that process.

It is important to understand that during the process ofinteraction between the parliamentary process and thecommunity a number of incidents and difficultmoments occurred. It was made clear by theHonourable Andrew Olexander in his contribution thatpressure was applied to a number of community groupsas part of the consultation process.



Hon. R. F. Smith — Untrue.

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS — It is not untrue, Mr Smith;it is quite true, and that is clear to all who know thosegroups. A number of those groups are on the publicrecord to that effect. That is not the way thatcommunity consultation should be undertaken. It is notthe role of governments to leverage community groupsand put them in take-it-or-leave-it positions, as wasdone on this issue. The community consultation processwas certainly not conducted in the spirit of the aims andpurposes of the principal act, and I register my concernabout that. I hope future consultations will not beconducted in that way.

The Premier should review his approach to those issuesand recognise that he is out of step with much of theLabor Party. A genuine ideological divide seems to beopening up inside the Labor Party on those issues. Anumber of people on the Labor back bench areconcerned and are expressing outrage that thegovernment stepped back from what it originallyintended to do and took another course in response topressure from an Independent whose vote on the issuewas, frankly, not required in the lower house. ThePremier has taken the opportunity to make a politicalpoint and take a different course from the preferreddirection of most members of the Labor Party.

Honourable members need to be watchful of theideological division that is occurring within the LaborParty to ensure that progressive steps in the communityare not stymied. Undoubtedly there is a divide on theissue between the Premier and the Attorney-General,who would have preferred the original bill. TheAttorney-General was directly instructed by thePremier to remove the original bill, modify it andintroduce amendments with which theAttorney-General fundamentally did not agree. Thereare even difficulties within cabinet on those sorts ofissues. I expect that over time more and more of thoseissues will come to light.

Members of the Labor Party have expressed theirconcerns to me. I will not reveal to the house who theyare, because that was done in confidence. Someinformation from within the Labor Party has beenprovided to the opposition. I note that at an early stagebefore the modifications were made an electorate kitwas produced for the Labor Party by the InformationServices Unit. The opposition has obtained a copy ofthat document, which makes quite interesting reading.There are noticeable tensions within the Labor Party onsome of those issues.

Hon. D. G. Hadden — You are making this up.

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS — I am not making it up.Would you care to see the document?

Hon. D. G. Hadden interjected.

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS — Would you like to see it?Perhaps you would like me to quote from it?

The ACTING PRESIDENT(Hon. G. B. Ashman) — Order! The honourablemember will speak through the Chair.

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS — I take up the honourablemember’s interjection. Unlike what occurred earlier inthe debate, I am happy to quote from the generic newsrelease that was provided — —

Hon. D. G. Hadden — By the Honourable who?

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS — By the Honourable XXX,actually. That document was provided to theopposition. That example of Labor on the front foot is ageneric news release that many people would beinterested in. It reads in part:

The member for XXXXXXX today welcomed Labor’s newlaw to prohibit discrimination against people on the basis oftheir gender identity or sexual orientation.

‘This law is socially progressive and protects the rights ofgays and lesbians’, XXXXXXX said today.

That news release was made before the bill waschanged. It is quite interesting to note — —

Hon. D. G. Hadden interjected.

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS — May is the month, but Icannot give you the exact date.

Hon. C. A. Furletti — It was a long time before thebill was changed.

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS — Indeed, it was a long timebefore the bill was changed. It was before theintervention of the Independent member for Mildura inthe other place, Mr Russell Savage, and before thePremier made his historic decision to change the bill byintroducing the bona fide test to reduce theeffectiveness of the operation of the bill. The newsrelease goes on in similar vein, making a series ofclaims about the original bill, not the current bill beforethe house.

I again refer to the Honourable Andrew Olexander’scontribution. He made some important points about theseriousness of the bill and the impact of discriminationon people in our community. He justified that point in



an accurate way, referring to good research that hasbeen done.

I note from the information and research in Enough isEnough, which have been referred to a number of timesduring the debate, that up to 95 per cent of transgenderpeople who undergo the transition process from onegender to the other lost their jobs as a result of thatprocess.

Hon. D. G. Hadden — That is shameful.

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS — I agree with the commentof the Honourable Dianne Hadden. I do not thinkanyone in the chamber would disagree with thosecomments or with the seriousness of the bill.

In conclusion, the opposition supports the principle ofantidiscrimination. At the same time I am concernedwith the way the process has been undertaken and withthe Premier’s lack of principle on the issue. I amconcerned about the unsatisfactory consultation processand about the untoward and inappropriate pressureapplied to a number of community groups during theconsultation process. I firmly oppose that form ofunsatisfactory community consultation. I compliment anumber of honourable members on their helpfulcontributions.

The PRESIDENT — Order! I call the HonourableBob Smith.

Hon. M. T. Luckins — On a point of order,Mr President, I have been informed by a colleague thatthe Honourable Bob Smith recently made offensivecomments about me. I only partially heard his remarksbecause of the noise in the chamber during the debate.In addition to referring to me as Madam Fifi he saidsomething like, ‘You’ll have no problem with sexualharassment; just look at you’. I object to those offensivestatements and ask the honourable member towithdraw.

Hon. R. F. Smith — On the point of order,Mr President, I have no problem withdrawing. I expecther to withdraw her comment to me about sexualharassment.

Hon. M. A. Birrell — On a point of order,Mr President — —

Hon. R. F. Smith — I withdraw.

The PRESIDENT — Order! The other issue is amatter that could be raised by the Honourable BobSmith, if he thought it appropriate.

Hon. R. F. SMITH (Chelsea) — I am happy tosupport the bill. I came to this house principally tosupport working people, disadvantaged people andmembers of the community who face discrimination.The bill goes a long way towards achievingantidiscrimination measures for a particular group insociety called transgender people, a group that is notwidely known. As a result of changes in the bill and theeducation program that will follow, the communityattitudes of many people will be changed.

Who are transgender people? They are not perverts ormonsters, nor are they people who exercise flippant ortrivial choices of sexual orientation. They experiencegenuine heartfelt issues of self-identity — issues thatare considered to be medical, and in some places, legalissues, in all states other than Queensland.

I took the opportunity to meet representatives ofTransgender Victoria so that I could gain a personalgrasp of the issues. The organisation’s co-convenor,Kayleen White, was of great assistance in helping meunderstand the issues, and I thank her for that. She hasdone a great job in explaining the issues to a number ofpoliticians and departmental officers. She should becongratulated on that. Her organisation should be proudof her because it takes courage for a member of a groupsuch as Transgender Victoria to put herself in the publicdomain. I commend her on that.

The bill is a product of another Bracks electioncommitment and should be supported. It will amendsection 6 of the principal act to add the phrases ‘genderidentity’ and ‘sexual orientation’ as bases on which it isunlawful to discriminate. Nobody should doubt thatthere is a need for the bill. I heard the HonourableRoger Hallam suggest earlier that because a flood ofpeople are not complaining about or abusing thesystem, therefore logically the problem is not large.Although only a small group within society may beaffected, 95 per cent of people lose their jobs when itbecomes known that they are transgender. The luckyones who do not lose their jobs frequently suffer adecline in the quality of their working life whenworkmates or employers become aware of their genderchange. As they try to go about their lives they aresubjected to negative reactions from various parts ofsociety, including the service sector, accommodationproviders and others.

As a result of the bill a concerted effort will be made bythe Equal Opportunity Commission and thegovernment to educate the public at large regarding allissues on the subject. It will go a long way towardseliminating discrimination. I have had first-handexperience on the issue. I was challenged by a couple of



golf club members, who said, ‘What are you peopledoing? What is going on with this transgenderbusiness?’. They overwhelmingly condemned the bill.After a brief discussion and explanation about thesituation I conducted a straw poll of the golf clubmembers. Only one person opposed the amendinglegislation. The general feeling was, ‘If that’s the case,that’s okay’. That demonstrates that education is thekey and that the old Australian cultural attitude aboutgiving people a fair go is alive and well.

The bill brings transgender people under the umbrellaof the Equal Opportunity Act and extends to them whatwe all take for granted — that is, protection fromdiscrimination. As a white, straight male I have neversuffered a great deal of persecution or discrimination. Ifind it hard to understand how bad it must be for somepeople. However, I know that nobody should besubjected to any form of discrimination. The bill willimprove the lot of many people.

Transgender Victoria recommended certain changes tothe bill. It suggested we should recognise that in someareas, such as sport, transgender people would have anunfair advantage if antidiscrimination measures appliedacross the board, particularly in those sports that requiregreater strength or durability. The lobby was happy tohave such circumstances excluded so that positivediscrimination applied. That goes some way towardsdemonstrating their good faith and that they have beensensible in their negotiations.

Earlier Mr Olexander and Mr David Davis said theyhad been pressured into accepting certain changes. I donot believe that is true. It is a shame they cannot speakfor themselves, but no pressure was applied onTransgender Victoria to accept certain changes to thebill. At the end of the day the group was happy tosupport the legislation. Section 25 takes care ofdiscrimination against children. The opportunity existsto protect children who may, in some circumstances,have difficulty confronting certain situations.Transgender Victoria is happy to accept that that part ofthe act protects children. It should be mentioned thatsome transgender people have their own children. It islogical to assume that they should not in any way beinclined to harm children physically or psychologically.It has been said that some parents may not wanttransgender teachers teaching their children. A numberof transgender teachers in New South Wales andVictoria successfully teach children in schools; neitherthey nor the children have any problem with that. Andthat being the case, honourable members should nothave any problem with it, either.

The bill is not perfect. Transgender Victoria wantsfurther changes and other organisations want furtheramendments; some would prefer no change. But as isthe case with politics, the issue is all about compromise.All parties are reasonably pleased with the compromiseand with further education. The fears of some will bealleviated and amendments will be developed.Transgender people deserve and should be given a fairgo, and the bill will achieve that aim. Proposedsection 27B in clause 6 includes those areas wherepeople can address the problems associated withemployment and transgender.

In conclusion, as I said, the bill is not perfect, but asChairman Mao said, the march of a thousand milesstarts with the first step. The bill is the first step, and Iwish it a speedy passage.


Hon. M. T. LUCKINS (Waverley) — I am pleasedto have the opportunity to speak on the bill. It was mygreat privilege to meet representatives from thetransgender community prior to the house debating thisbill. I met these people to find out first-hand about theissues and challenges they face in the community.Whether the challenges are biological or psychologicalis irrelevant; the people who choose to change theirgender deserve to be supported by our community.Speaking with these people I got the distinct impressionthat they felt trapped by the bodies of their birth. Thedecision to undergo gender transition is not madelightly; often it is made after many years ofconsideration, consultation and reflection by theindividual.

I have had my horizons broadened as a member ofParliament having had the opportunity to investigate theprovisions of this bill. I heard first-hand fromrepresentatives of the transgender community about theimpact of the momentous decision to change their sexand how they are perceived and treated in ourcommunity. The root of all discrimination is ignoranceand intolerance. Many in society feel threatened bypeople who are different — people who do not conformto one’s perception of normality.

In 1995 the Kennett government, through Jan Wade asAttorney-General, introduced legislation that becamethe Equal Opportunity Act. That act prohibitsdiscrimination on the following grounds: age,impairment, industrial activity, lawful sexual activity,marital status, physical features, political belief oractivity, pregnancy, race, religious belief or activity,sex, and status as a parent or carer.



The Labor Party in government amended the act to dealwith breastfeeding. During the debate on thatamendment I highlighted my view that the Kennettgovernment’s 1995 act covered all facets ofdiscrimination against individuals in the community.However, I reiterate what I said at the time — that is,any measure to promote antidiscriminatory behaviourin the community must be applauded and supported.

Section 23 of the Equal Opportunity Act deals with anexception in relation to reasonable terms ofemployment. It states:

An employer may set reasonable terms or requirements ofemployment, or make reasonable variations to those terms orrequirements, to take into account —

(a) the reasonable and genuine requirements of theemployment;

(b) any special limitations that a person’s impairment orphysical features imposes on his or her capacity toundertake the employment;

(c) any special services or facilities that are required toenable him or her to undertake the employment or tofacilitate the conduct of the employment.

Section 24 deals with an exception in relation to withstandards of dress and behaviour. It states:

An employer may set and enforce standards of dress,appearance and behaviour for employees that are reasonablehaving regard to the nature and circumstances of theemployment.

Most importantly, section 25 relates an exception inrelation to the care of children. It states that anemployer discriminate against an employee if:

(a) the employment involves the care, instruction orsupervision of children; and

(b) the employer genuinely believes that the discriminationis necessary to protect the physical, psychological oremotional wellbeing of children; and

(c) having regard to all the relevant circumstances,including, if applicable, the conduct of the employee orprospective employee, the employer has a rational basisfor that belief.

From speaking with representatives of the transgendercommunity I am aware of the use of that provision toactively discriminate against individuals in thecommunity who have chosen to change their sex.

There is no doubt that transgender and intersex peopleare among the most discriminated against in thecommunity. I refer to the following statistics ontransgender people: 22 per cent are unemployed, 50 percent have experienced problems with the police, 21 per

cent have been bashed in a public place and 56 per centhave experienced problems relating to the provision ofgoods and services. Those figures are based on a studyby the Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, theresults of which were published in a report entitledEnough is Enough.

In 1994 Roberta Perkins published an Australia-widereport entitled HIV/AIDS — Needs of TransgenderPeople. Ms Perkins was undertaking a masters degreein New South Wales at the time. She found that 95 percent of transgender people lose their jobs ontransitioning, 38 per cent attempt suicide and 52 percent become isolated.

There is absolutely no doubt that there is a greatintolerance and misunderstanding in the community ofthe needs of people who choose to change their sex. Icannot envisage what it would be like to feel trapped inand dismayed by your own body. The decision tochange is not taken lightly. It is taken often with thesupport of family and friends. Often the person feelsisolated in his or her own decision, but it is a decisionof the individual and members on this side of the househave always supported the rights of individuals to makedeterminations about their own futures.

Intersex individuals, those of indiscriminate sex orchildren born with both male and female organs atbirth, are particularly vulnerable to discrimination atschool and from the wider community. Since theintroduction of the bill in the other house I havepondered how I would feel as a parent if one of mychildren had been born intersex. It would be onerousfor parents to have to decide whether to choose thegender of a baby very early after birth and have surgeryto make sure the child had only one sex. I have come tothe conclusion that if one of my children were affected Iwould probably leave the child as it was and wait to seewhat the child wanted. It would be a difficult decisionfor parents to make. The fact is that regardless ofwhether the need to change is psychological, hormonalor physical, any person who decides he or she relatesbetter to the other gender needs the full support,understanding and acceptance of our community.

I have always been a strong advocate for women’saffairs and for antidiscrimination legislation whenanyone is discriminated against, whether it be on thegrounds of disability, race, religion, gender orpreference. Throughout the community there aresmall-minded people who are ignorant of the issues.Such people are easily threatened by people who do notconform to their view of society. In my experience ofdealing with friends who are either lesbian or gay,deciding to follow that path is not a decision that is



taken lightly, nor often is it a deliberate decision. Giventhe discrimination such people have to live with on adaily basis no-one would deliberately decide to becomegay or lesbian.

Some lesbian and gay people would not be known as orseen to be gay or lesbian by the wider community.They look normal; they look like you or me. But thosewho feel trapped within their own gender and who seekto have that rectified by becoming a member of theother gender are a little more obvious in thecommunity. They are also less understood and lessaccepted, and that is a great pity. I am happy thereforeto support the legislation, even though I believe theprovisions of the 1995 act covered any discriminationthat takes place in Victoria.

I am very pleased to have met with the representativesof Transgender Victoria and to have had them open mymind to the many challenges, obstacles and hurdlesthey face in their daily lives. It was interesting to speakto some of the representatives about their experiences. Iasked one person who had changed from male tofemale whether she had found she was treated anydifferently after the change. She said that once shebecame a female she was discriminated against, which Ifound most interesting, because it happens to me all thetime. I have been discriminated against in car yards andin other typically male environments in the community.

Hon. A. P. Olexander — In the chamber!

Hon. M. T. LUCKINS — In the chamber, indeed,Mr Olexander. Having been discriminated against inthe chamber this evening during debate on the bill,which was inappropriate, unfortunately I find it not atall surprising that people who choose to change frommale to female are still discriminated against in thecommunity, in this instance because they are nowperceived as female. The community has a long way togo if it is to be a tolerant, caring and supportive societyfor all of its members. The rights of individuals to makechoices in life has to be respected, and people must besupported in their choices. That is part of the basicphilosophy of the Liberal Party.

Many people are small-minded and ignorant and feelthreatened because they do not understand. I acceptthat, but the bill is part of the educational process forthe community, although I believe the situation wascovered in the previous act.

Clearly members of the transgender and intersexcommunity are still being discriminated against becausethe act was not publicised enough. If the bill managesto promote the rights of these marginalised groups of

individuals in our community it is worth the debate. Isupport the bill and wish it a speedy passage.

Hon. K. M. Smith — Mr Deputy President, I drawyour attention to the state of the house.

Quorum formed.

Hon. S. M. NGUYEN (Melbourne West) — I amdelighted to speak on the Equal Opportunity (GenderIdentity and Sexual Orientation) Bill, which meets oneof the commitments made by the then Bracksopposition before the election and will now deliver onthat promise to the community. The bill will help theVictorian community. The government went throughall the issues relating to equal opportunity. Not long agoParliament debated the breastfeeding bill that supportedwomen, now we are debating gender identity andsexual orientation.

We are entering the 21st century, and we must livetogether in a changing world. It does not matter whereone comes from or where one lives, we should try toput our differences aside and as a community respectone another.

The bill refers to discrimination against gay, lesbian andtransgender people. Many newspaper and other mediastories in the past have shown that if one does not looknormal one may be harassed by others in public places,such as at bus stops or railway stations. Sometimessuch people are harmed.

The government recognised the chance to change theact, and this bill will protect every individual. Sometime ago a bill was introduced in Tasmania by the thenconservative government that tried to ban certain acts.This bill will not only protect people regardless of theirsexual orientation but give them a fair go wherever theyare.

The Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby hasrecently released a report entitled Enough is Enough —A Report on Discrimination and Abuse Experienced byLesbians, Gay Men and Transgender People inVictoria, which documents the results of a survey of929 members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual andtransgender communities in Victoria concerning theirexperiences of discrimination and abuse.

It reported that 84 per cent of participants hadexperienced at least one form of discrimination andabuse. Of those reporting discrimination or abuse,79 per cent had experienced it in relation to assault orharassment in a public place, followed by 48 per centexperiencing discrimination or abuse in employment,31 per cent in education, 28 per cent in the provision of



goods and services, 27 per cent in relation to medicaltreatment, 20 per cent in relation to police and other lawenforcement, 16 per cent in relation to parenting, 14 percent in relation to club membership and 11 per cent inrelation to tenancy. That is a high number of peoplewho have suffered because of discrimination.

An estimated 95 per cent of people who make thetransition from one gender to the other lose their jobsbecause of that transition. That is a high percentage.Only 5 per cent hold their jobs, which means membersof the transgender community have a higher risk in theemployment area. People are still negative about them.

The Equal Opportunity Act prohibits discrimination on13 grounds in areas of public life such as employment,education, the provision of goods and services,accommodation, club membership, sports and localgovernment. The principal act also refers to unlawfullydiscriminating against someone on the basis of age,impairment, industrial activity, lawful sexual activity,marital status, physical features, political belief oractivity, pregnancy, race, religious belief or activity,sex, parental or carer status or personal association witha person who is identified by reference to any of theabove attributes. Breastfeeding is also referred to in theact.

Many communities referred to in the bill seekprotection from the government. Everyone has a rightto go to work, public places, clubs and societies withoutbeing discriminated against. The situation today can becompared with that of 10 years ago. Many changeshave been brought about by community awareness.

The government is trying to ensure there is no violencein the community. It will not tolerate anyone doingharmful things to people who are different in any way.Many times on television I have seen people killedbecause of the way they looked. The bill will educatethe community to accept everyone and to have an openmind. There is great community awareness in myelectorate and everyone has the right to do what theybelieve is right. There is more work to be done, but thebill is the first step of the Bracks government’scommitment to ensure everyone has equalopportunities. I support the bill before the house.

Hon. ANDREA COOTE (Monash) — I amhonoured to speak on the bill. Monash Province has alarge homosexual community that provides a rich anddiverse culture to the electorate. There are manytransgender people who I wish to thank for theirassistance while undertaking research for the bill.

Many honourable members have spoken in detail aboutthe detail of the bill. The Honourable Carlo Furlettiwent into explicit detail on its structure. As he andmany others have said, clause 1 sets out the purpose ofthe bill and amends the Equal Opportunity Act toprohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identityor sexual orientation.

Clauses 2 and 3 deal with the detail of the bill andclause 4 inserts the definitions of ‘gender identity’ and‘sexual orientation’ into the act. Clause 5 also dealswith the technicalities of the bill. Clause 6 inserts a newexception in the principal act and clarifies the issue ofemployment for transgender people. That inclusion willenable employers to discriminate if they do not getadequate notice of the person’s changed identity or ifaccommodating those changes will be unreasonable. Ihave some difficulty with the term ‘unreasonable’because it can so easily be misconstrued.

Clause 7 deals with issues relating to sport. This issueneeds to be clarified for the benefit of both the sportingcommunity and transgenders. I am pleased to see that itis not unlawful to exclude a person on the basis ofgender identity from participating in a competitivesporting activity in which strength, stamina or physiqueis relevant. As other honourable members have said inthe debate, this clause will bring Victoria into line withall other states except Queensland. Clause 8 also dealswith the technicalities of the act.

I am honoured to have the opportunity to speak on thebill because as I have explained to the house onprevious occasions I find discrimination of any kindabhorrent. The transgender members of the communityare among the most discriminated members of society.I emphasise that this condition is not a matter of choice.At the risk of appearing melodramatic, it is frequently amatter of life and death. I have been informed thatsuicide is an option considered by many people facingthe complex issue of gender identity.

Discrimination is often worst when there is a lack ofunderstanding of an issue, or alternatively when aperson does not have detailed information. I admit tothe house that there were some details abouttransgenders and transsexuals that I did not understanduntil I began to undertake research on the bill. I willshare with the house some of the information I found,because the issue is confusing and complex and thereare questions we do not like to ask or do not feel weshould ask.

The word ‘transgender’ is an umbrella term thatincludes transsexuals. Transsexuals are people whobelieve they are psychologically a member of the



opposite gender from that which they are biologicallyborn. That includes people who change from female tomale as well as, more commonly, those who changefrom male to female.

A cross-dresser, formerly called a transvestite, issomeone who dresses in clothing of the opposite genderfor emotional satisfaction. I acknowledge the excellentwork of Seahorse Victoria, a support organisation forcross-dressers and the transgender community. I thankPaul Corbett for the advice he gave me on this sensitiveand personal issue.

A person of indeterminate sex is someone who is bornwithout being clearly either male or female, andincludes the following: hermaphrodites, who are bornwith equal male and female chromosomes and haveboth male and female genitalia;pseudo-hermaphrodites, who have 46 XX female or46 XY male chromosomes and are anatomically mixedbetween the genders; people with Klinefelter’ssyndrome, who have 47 XXY chromosomes and arebiologically mixed between genders; and people withTurner’s syndrome who have 45 XO chromosomes andare biologically and anatomically mixed between thegenders.

I ask honourable members to consider what it would belike following the birth of a baby to face a situation likethat. It is something honourable members haveprobably never thought about. However, it is somethingI thought about when undertaking research for the bill. Ifeel for people born that way. It is imperative that as acommunity we sensitively address the issue, whichwould be horrifying, to say the least.

I am concerned that the bill does not deal with intersexpeople who do not wish to have reassignment surgeryand who wish to live as an intersex individual. The billdoes not deal with such people, who must be among themost discriminated and most vulnerable in thecommunity. I hope the government will address theissue very soon, and as the Honourable AndrewOlexander said, that issue should have been included inthe bill.

I have learnt a great deal from the transgendercommunity and I acknowledge the excellent work ofKayleen White and Sally Goldner, who answered themost intimate questions with an openness and franknessI really appreciated. There have been many allegationsand many myths about transgender people beingsexually deviant. I refer to the Transgender Victoriapolitical education sheet of November 1999, whichstates:

It should be clearly understood that being transgender is not aform of sexual or other deviancy. When a female-to-maletranssexual (that is, someone who was born female, butconsiders that they are male and are changing their lifestyleand body to be consistent with that) goes to the male toilet,that is not motivated by an expression of sexuality or a desirefor sexual gratification, he simply needs to relieve himself.When a male-to-female transsexual changes her name, that isnot done for sexual gratification or primarily as an expressionof sexuality, it is a matter of adopting a lifestyle consistentwith the gender they know they are.

It is important for us to know that and not to get caughtup with the hysteria that surrounds these issues.

One of the transgender people I met said to me, ‘Iwould not wish this on my worst enemy’. I found thatthe decision to make the transition was done with agreat deal of anguish and in so many cases was a verylonely decision. My heart goes out to them.

Transgender Victoria provided me with some excellentmaterial. Much of it has been referred to in the debate.The latest evidence suggests that at least 45 per cent oftranssexuals are female to male. This condition isknown as transgender dysphoria. Being transgender isnot a matter of choice and the decision to make thetransition — to begin to live as a member of the genderto which one feels one belongs — is not an easy one.

The process for transsexuals is referred to as genderreassessment. It is a rigorous procedure involving twoyears living in the desired gender role while beingassessed regularly by a panel of psychiatrists prior tobeing approved for the appropriate surgery. It is notsomething taken lightly or done on a whim, and I hopemembers understand that.

As has already been said, it is sad to know that morethan 36 per cent, a large number, of transgender peoplehave committed suicide. That is totally unacceptable. Irefer to an expert in transgender issues, Dr TrudyKennedy from the Monash University gender dysphoriaclinic, who states:

Please quote me as saying that transgender people need to livein the gender which they feel consistent with their sense ofself-identity:

1. to enhance their sense of wellbeing;

2. to help them adopt a healthy and well-integratedapproach to everyday life;

3. it is part of the ‘real life test’ which is the internationallyaccepted standard for the acceptance of the transgendercondition;

4 to achieve the ‘real life test’ it is imperative for them towork in the gender to which they want to be reassigned.



In Australia we have a fundamental belief that peoplehave the right to live their lives as individuals, buttransgender people are some of the most discriminatedagainst in the community. The discrimination isappalling. I give two examples of discrimination. Oneof them is a personal explanation, and it is touching tohear just how hard it has been for that person. I quotefrom the Transgender Victoria letter of November 1999from Kayleen White which refers to Pippa Reeves. Itstates:

Pippa’s experiences show some of the worst that can happento transgender people, including threats of physical assaults.

I remind honourable members that many transgenderpeople are bashed because of their sexual orientation.

Although a competent technician, with nearly 20 years ofcontinuous experience in six positions, transition two yearsago led to loss of her job. Since then Pippa has applied for147 jobs, attended 36 interviews, has been offered 2 jobs, andhas only worked 1 year. (She has had one job offer laterwithdrawn.) She was hired by one company in January, butwas told that her services were no longer required at the startof March. Pippa is very lucid on the difficulties of applyingfor jobs, including the need to change resumes (particularlyprevious referees) …

Just think of that. How difficult would that be! It wouldbe particularly difficult for people who have hadreferees to change their referees. We must think aboutthose issues of discrimination.

The document goes on to say that transgender peoplehave enormous difficulty in finding accommodation,particularly when a previous landlord is behaving in astrongly prejudicial manner and the person is sufferingthe effects of not been employed.

Statistics have been referred to by other honourablemembers, including Ms Romanes and Ms Carbines,and I wish to reinforce some of them. I refer to thereport known as Enough is Enough from the Gay andLesbian Rights Lobby, which indicates that 22 per centof transgender people were unemployed; 50 per centhad experienced problems with police; 21 per cent hadbeen bashed in a public place — that is totallyunacceptable — and 56 per cent had experiencedproblems relating to the provision of goods andservices. I ask honourable members to consider what itwould be like to be discriminated against in the simplethings that many of us take for granted.

I have said before that I have spoken at length withDr Trudy Kennedy from the Monash University genderdysphoria clinic. I call on the government to do morethan just pay lip-service to the transgender issue.Dr Kennedy told me that Victoria has some of the bestsurgeons in this discipline in the whole world and that

La Trobe University is recognised worldwide for theresearch work it has done.

I am saddened to learn that some of the people whowant female-to-male operations have had to travel toBangkok to get treatment. That is not acceptable.Instead of just implementing the legislation, although itis a step in the right direction, I call on the governmentto provide funding to enable comprehensive research tobe conducted. It is imperative that we have research thatwill enable us to understand the issue better and toensure a better quality of life for transgender membersof our community. La Trobe University has taken theinitiative. It is now up to the government to put itsmoney where its mouth is.

I have great concerns about some of the methodologyused in this legislative process. That has already beenalluded to. Some members of the transgendercommunity feel pressured and bullied because theyhave had to accept the government’s amendments.

I hope as a community we look at the transgendercommunity sympathetically. I will carefully monitor theimpact of the amendments the government hasintroduced under pressure from the Independents.

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS (Jika Jika) — I will bebrief in my comments because a number of members ofthe government have covered the bill in some detail andexplained why the government has introduced it. Anumber of government members spoke about thecontext in which the bill has been introduced anddiscussed, for example, the findings of the reportentitled Enough is Enough. They have referred to thelevel of discrimination that is faced by transgenderpeople, particularly in the area of employment, and thehigh level of suicide contemplated by members of thetransgender community.

Without going over that material again, I emphasisethat it is in that context of discrimination and problemsfaced by this sector of the community that thegovernment decided to implement its pre-electioncommitment to end discrimination and victimisation oftransgender people by introducing the legislation.

I am pleased to speak in support of the bill. It isgroundbreaking legislation. From the correspondence Ihave received it is clear that some members of thecommunity have been concerned about some aspects ofthe bill.

I believe the concerns raised by those members of thecommunity have been based on misinformation andignorance and I hope the passage of the bill will leadnot only to a greater level of education among members



of Parliament, as we have seen tonight, but also amongmembers of the community generally.

At this point I commend honourable members.Generally, the debate has been of a high standard and toa large degree that is due to the Transgender Victoriaorganisation, which I know has worked hard to providemembers of Parliament with information about theproblems experienced by members of the communityand about various aspects of the bill. I commendTransgender Victoria, and in particular I place on therecord my thanks to the co-convenor of TransgenderVictoria, Ms Kayleen White, for engaging indiscussions with me and other government members inthe provision of important information on the bill.

I do not want to go in detail over the points made byopposition members during the debate. I note that theHonourable Andrew Olexander raised a number ofissues, some of which are valid in terms of people ofindeterminate sex and perhaps the need to further lookat the legislation in the future. I accept those pointsraised by the honourable member and also note thenumber of points he made about the liberalist traditionof the Liberal Party. Some of his colleagues wereperhaps not as enthusiastic about the bill as he was, andI am pleased that members of the Liberal Party havebeen prepared to support the passage of the legislationtonight. The Liberal Party, of course, had a number ofyears in government.


Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS — I should add that theHonourable Maree Luckins said there was no need forthe bill because the current Equal Opportunity Actcovers discrimination against transgender people,something on which she is mistaken. I hope the debatetonight will go a long way to redressing the lack ofinformation that some opposition members have on thelegislation.

As I said earlier, I do not want to go over the bill indetail as I believe a number of government membershave done so more than adequately. The bill issignificant in that it introduces two additional attributesto the Equal Opportunity Act which will prohibitdiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation orgender identity.

In his comments on sexual orientation theHonourable Roger Hallam referred to the view of theNational Party that the Equal Opportunity Act currentlycovered discrimination against homosexuals, bisexualsand lesbians, and that the government was in factpandering to the concerns of the homosexual lobby in

introducing the amendment. For the record, I refute thatassertion and note that apart from Victoria, onlyQueensland still uses the term ‘lawful sexual activity’in its equal opportunity legislation. While the term hasbeen interpreted broadly by the Equal OpportunityCommission and the Victorian Civil andAdministrative Tribunal (VCAT) in the past in order toprovide homosexuals, bisexuals and lesbians withadequate protection, it fails to recognise that thosepeople face discrimination because of their sexualidentity and not because of their sexual practices oractivities. It is for that reason that the government is ofthe firm view that sexual orientation rather than sexualactivity is the more appropriate term to be included inthe Equal Opportunity Act.

Hon. R. M. Hallam — Why didn’t you take ‘lawfulsexual activity’ out of the act?

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS — I will explain that toyou, Mr Hallam. There may well be situations, forexample, involving a prostitute who is engaged inlawful sexual activity in a brothel and who could be thesubject of discrimination. The government has decidedto keep the reference to lawful sexual activity in theEqual Opportunity Act to cover those possiblescenarios.

Hon. C. A. Furletti — Have you another example?

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS — On the basis of theaddition of the attribute of sexual orientation in the act,and the view that it is not conferring an additional righton anyone, the government has been prepared to makediscrimination on the basis of sexual orientationretrospective in nature, although it will not apply topeople who have currently lodged a complaint with theVCAT.

I turn now to the addition by clause 5 of the attribute ofgender identity in the act. By including in the equalopportunity legislation a prohibition againstdiscrimination against transgender people, theamendment will bring Victoria into line with all otherstates, except Queensland. I understand that Victoriawill, through the legislation, possibly be the leadingjurisdiction in the sense that the definition of genderidentity is broad and includes people of indeterminatesex. It also includes people who are cross-dressers, if Ican use that term, and it is for that reason that Victoriawill lead the way Australia wide in tackling thediscrimination faced by transgender people.

I use the term ‘transgender people’ in a loose sense. It isincluded in the act, and is a fairly broad definition thatincludes people such as transsexuals, transvestites,



cross-dressers and hermaphrodites. It is for that reasonthat the term ‘gender identity’ has been used in the actrather than referring to each particular instanceseparately.

As a result of discussions with the honourable memberfor Mildura in another place, an alteration was made tothe original draft of the bill to include the term ‘bonafide’. The act will protect a person who has adopted ona bona fide basis the gender other than the gender inwhich he or she was born.

That was intended to address issues raised by RussellSavage, the honourable member for Mildura in theother place, who was concerned about people whocross-dress on a social basis and who have not adoptedseriously a gender other than the gender with whichthey were born. The alteration to that definition shouldin no way water down the effect of the operation of thebill.

I turn now to comment on the exceptions included inthe bill, which seem to have taken up most of thedebate. Clause 7, which relates to a sporting activityexception, builds upon a current exception contained insection 66 of the Equal Opportunity Act, which allowsa person to be excluded from participating in acompetitive sporting activity in which the strength,stamina or physique of competitors is relevant. Thatsection will be amended to make it not unlawful toexclude a person from so participating in a competitivesporting activity on the basis of gender identity.

A more significant exception in the bill is contained inclause 6, which relates to employment. As I said earlier,a number of alterations were made to the bill followingconcerns being raised by the honourable member forMildura. I accept that the inclusion of clause 6 in thebill is less than ideal, particularly in view of anumber — —

Hon. A. P. Olexander — You got rolled, did you?

Hon. P. A. Katsambanis — Did you speak againstit in your party room?

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS — Settle down.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order!Mr Katsambanis will have his opportunity in a moment.

Hon. P. A. Katsambanis — Did you support it oroppose it in the party room?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order!Mr Katsambanis!

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS — The bill amends anumber of current exceptions contained in the actrelating to employment. However, I do not accept theassertion that has been made by a number of oppositionmembers, particularly the Honourables AndrewOlexander and David Davis, that members ofTransgender Victoria were pressured into acceptingamendments. They are free to criticise the inclusion ofclause 6 in the bill if they so wish. No trade-off ensuedas a result of the inclusion of that clause. As oppositionmembers are aware, the government is committedunder a charter with the Independents to engage inconsultation with them when they express concernsabout the government’s proposed legislation. Thegovernment also engaged in a process of consultationwith Transgender Victoria during the course ofdiscussions with the honourable member for Mildura.

I hope few employers will seek to have recourse to thenew exception in proposed section 27B relating togender identity and employment. When the exception issought to be used the onus will be on the employer todemonstrate that discrimination is reasonable in thecircumstances.

I understand that the Equal Opportunity Commissionwill be consulting with Transgender Victoria and otherinterested stakeholders in developing guidelines to beissued by the commission for the information of bothtransgender people and Victorian employers as to howthe bill will operate in practice. In my view such aprocess of education will be a significant factor inalleviating that type of discrimination in the future. Ihope the guidelines to be issued by the EqualOpportunity Commission and the education campaignit will engage in will assist transgender people to enjoymany aspects of life — for example, having jobs andrenting houses — that many of us take for granted willbe provided to us free from discrimination. I have toaccept that some members of the community haveaccused the government of social engineering inintroducing the bill. I do not have a problem with socialengineering if what it does is compel through a legalsanction public education and the end of discriminationcaused by misinformation, prejudice and hatred.

I welcome the introduction of the bill. I commend theAttorney-General for his determination in seeing itspassage through. I know from discussions with KayleenWhite and Transgender Victoria that there are manyother issues they would like to see addressed, such asthe issue of birth certificates for transgender peoplewho are either awaiting gender reassignment surgery oreven those who are not contemplating having suchsurgery. The government is committed to redressingdiscrimination against all members of the community.



It will be reviewing the adequacy of the current equalopportunity legislation during the current term of theParliament. I hope to see more work done and morelegislation developed by the government in the future toaddress remaining areas of discrimination.

I am very proud to be able to speak in support of thebill. I hope its passage will assist members of thetransgender community to participate in the communityfree of discrimination and to deal with the manydifficulties they face when going through the transitionprocess of adopting a new gender identity. That is avery difficult process for any person to go through. Ihope the bill will go a significant way towards makinglife a lot easier for them during that process. I commendthe bill to the house.

Hon. P. A. KATSAMBANIS (Monash) — As I riseto speak on the bill, I cannot help but reflect that itwould be much better legislation had the housereceived the bill originally presented to the other place.Although I had a number of reservations about itsoriginal form, the bill before us highlights the fact thatin the short space of time between theAttorney-General’s decision to introduce the EqualOpportunity (Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation)Bill and its arrival in this house, equal opportunity hasgone backwards rather than forwards.

The issue highlights that the government is not aboutleadership or redressing wrongs, whether real orperceived; it is about compromise, minimising angst invarious areas and selling out principle for expediency.Any government member who cares to reflect on thecomments I have just made will realise that the billencapsulates the principle of selling out forexpediency — in this case, the expediency of satisfyingone Independent member in the other place at theexpense of much needed good legislation.

Despite all that, the bill is an improvement on what iscontained in the act. It remains to be seen whether thatis good, but in truth the government has reneged on itscommitment. Its initial commitment was evident in theoriginal bill. However, the final version now beingdebated reveals the emperor’s new clothes for exactlywhat they are.

Unfortunately equal opportunity is a misunderstoodarea in the community. From what I can discern thereare two prevailing schools of thought about what equalopportunity means. One school of thought appears toimply that the concept of equal opportunity in someway, shape or form introduces special rights to selectgroups of individuals. I have made it clear during mytime in this place that I oppose singling out groups for

special rights or to allow legislative privileges to bebestowed on one group of people versus other groups.That is not what equal opportunity is all about, and thatperception in some parts of the community should becorrected.

The other prevailing idea of equal opportunity that Iand Liberal Party members favour is a concept whereall individuals in society are afforded a set of rightsunder which they can live their lives. That would beafforded to them irrespective of any difference incolour, creed, religion, the football team they follow —if you want to reduce it to that banal level — andcertainly irrespective of sex, sexual orientation andgender identity. I welcome the parts of the bill thatadvance that concept. I repeat that I would havewelcomed the opportunity to have supported a bill thatfurther advanced such concepts, unlike the bill that hasgone backwards in its short life span in the two houses.

I support the concept of equal opportunity, of trueequality irrespective of differences. Every individualhas a right to live a life free from discrimination, blameor finger pointing because of a difference in his or hermake-up. The Liberal Party has advanced that conceptof equal opportunity almost since its inception, and itsrecord is a proud one.

My parliamentary colleagues who have contributed tothe debate — the Honourables Carlo Furletti, AndrewOlexander, David Davis, Maree Luckins and AndreaCoote — have made it clear that the Liberal Party has astrong and proud record in equal opportunity. Icommend my colleague the Honourable AndrewOlexander on his contribution, which will go down asone of the real benchmarks or hallmarks of the LiberalParty’s commitment to equal opportunity in Victoriaand Australia. I congratulate the honourable member.

In my electorate the concepts of gender identity andsexual orientation are not some nebulous concepts orsomething that is untouchable, full of fear or needs tobe thought of in the abstract. The issues of genderidentity and sexual orientation are a day-to-day realityin my electorate. Individuals who have suffereddiscrimination because of their gender identity orsexual orientation are not individuals about whom onehears or reads about or finds out about from talking toother people; rather, they live in and make a strongcontribution to the community. Their contributions arevalued not only because of what they do but because ofthe individuals they are. I am proud to work and live inand represent a community that is prepared to whollyaccept every individual as an individual.



I place on the record with pride that daily I come acrosstranssexuals who were born with gender identityconflicts — be they hermaphrodites or the like — andthat I number some of those people among myassociates and friends. It is not something that thepeople of my province think of as an abstract concept.It is something we live with as a day-to-day reality andwe do so very well in a spirit of harmony, tolerance andacceptance that is the hallmark of an open and inclusiveAustralia.

In some ways the bill addresses the almost systematicdiscrimination that has been unfortunately visited uponsome of those people over a long time. I will notbelabour the issues that my colleagues have covered; Isimply point to the issues in the bill that concern me.The contributions of my colleagues and even those, inthe main, of members of the government highlightedthe positive benefits of the legislation.

The definition of ‘gender identity’ concerns me. In theinitial incarnation of the bill the government, whetherby accident or design, got it about right. However, theinclusion of a number of amendments to the definitionof ‘gender identity’ in clause 4(1)(a), especially thephrase ‘on a bona fide basis’, greatly concerns me.During my four years as a member of this house I haveseen quite an amount of legislation debated, but I havenever seen a piece of legislation in this place thatimposes the burden of proof on ‘a bona fide basis’. It isalmost akin to accusing people of not being bona fide.

Had the people who drafted this cobbled-togetheramendment to satisfy one Independent member of theother place come across real people who suffer genderidentity, conflict and discrimination they would haverealised that the inclusion of the term ‘on a bona fidebasis’ is not only a misinterpretation andmisrepresentation of the issues but an insult to people.It is accusatory and I think the government should beheld to account for it.

The other issue that goes with this point of the bonafide basis is how it is likely to be interpreted. I do notthink the question of what a bona fide basis forclaiming discrimination because of gender identity ishas been tested legally. I ask the question: will it lead toa situation of someone who claims discrimination onthis ground being cross-examined as to whether theirissue of gender identity — be it transsexuality, being ahermaphrodite or some other form of genderdysphoria — is actually bona fide? Will it lead tocross-examination of that person as to their bona fides?What is the government trying to get at?

In other areas of the law, particularly in issues relatingto sexual offences, victims often complain that the legalprocess involves a cross-examination of them ratherthan the accused. I would welcome the minister at thetable allaying my fears if he is able to do so, but I fearthat this inclusion of a bona fide basis might lead usdown a path in equal opportunity whereby the victimrather than the alleged perpetrator becomes the subjectof cross-examination. I highlight that to the house as anarea where I think the government has simply caved into the pressures of one individual at the expense ofgood legislation.

I view fairly clearly the issue of whether sexualorientation is covered in the current act. Some peoplehave made the point that the term ‘sexual orientation’may or may not be covered by the term ‘lawful sexualactivity’. I am satisfied that if there is a concern or aquestion mark, there will be no problem in legislating totake away that question mark and make the area clear. Iam quite comfortable with the inclusion of thatprovision. I wish to make that point to the house at thisstage.

Clause 6 of the bill deals with the exception of genderidentity and the grounds upon which an employer maydiscriminate against a person on the basis of genderidentity. This is another compromise cobbled togetherto satisfy one individual, and it opens up a can ofworms. Significant exceptions are already included inthe Equal Opportunity Act, and I would argue thatthose exceptions are enough. They cover all thegrounds of discrimination available under the act and tosingle out the issue of gender identity for a very specificexemption such as the one introduced in clause 6smacks of expediency and of compromising principlefor the purpose of short-term political gain — possiblysimply the continued support of one particular person.This again highlights the risks of subjecting thelegislative process to the control of one or twoindividuals who have been elected on a narrowmandate.

As with the issue related to the definition of genderidentity, I fear the consequences of any actions broughtunder the heading of discrimination on the basis ofgender identity and how this exception — which willbe contained in section 27B of the act if and when thisbill is passed — will be interpreted. I also fear whatimpact it will have on individuals who might wish tobring an action for discrimination but will be essentiallyprecluded from doing so because of the existence ofthis clause. There will be a barrier that they will believecannot be overcome. I fear that this exception clausewill act in the same way as the question of whethersexual orientation equals lawful sexual activity did in

JURIES BILL


stopping many people from bringing actions they mightotherwise have wished to bring under the act. I fear thatthis exception clause will effectively deny people theopportunity to seek redress for discriminationperpetrated against them.

The only other issue I shall highlight to the house hasbeen highlighted by some of my colleagues, especiallythe Honourable Andrea Coote, my fellow member forMonash Province. It relates to the specific definition ofgender identity. On my reading of the bill, the definitionseems to include a person of indeterminate sex whochooses to live as one sex or the other, but it does notinclude a person of indeterminate sex who chooses ofhis or her own free will not to make a finitedetermination whether to be male or female but tocontinue to be of indeterminate sex. It is a small butimportant point. As other honourable members havepointed out, people of indeterminate sex are, if not themost discriminated against people in society, certainlyamong the most discriminated against people in societysimply because the community has little understandingof the issues relating to them.

For the government to bring in legislation that coverssome but not all of the issues relating to people ofindeterminate sex is a failing. It was a failing of theoriginal bill introduced in the other place. When the billwas introduced it was hoped and thought that thatmight be corrected in the process. However, as I said atthe start of my contribution, instead of going forward inthat process this government has gone backward.Instead of enhancing the cause of equal opportunity inthe areas of gender identity and sexual orientation thegovernment has taken one, two or three stepsbackwards. Given that this is a new government with asupposed mandate to introduce changes in this area I donot hold my breath hoping that things will get anybetter in the next few years.

In closing, the last point I wish to make has beenhighlighted by my colleagues. It is the continualdiscussion I hear about the fact that after striking thismealy-mouthed compromise the governmenteffectively pressured or bullied people in thetransgender community to either accept this bill or to goquietly. Those sorts of stories concern me. They strikeat the heart of the legislative process and democraticsystem because if this government, which mouthsplatitudes of openness and accountability, is prepared tobully certain groups in the community into accepting itsflawed legislation, it is a sad day for democracy inVictoria and the government should be held to accountfor it.

It saddens me, as it does my colleagues, to have to raisethe issue tonight. However, it is important to highlightto the people of Victoria that if this is how this fairlynew government, which still has quite a while of itsterm to go, intends operating, Victorians will need asmuch help as they can get.

As I said at the start of my contribution, I would prefernot to be debating this bill. I would prefer to havedebated the bill which was originally produced in theother place and which in a perfect world Parliamentwould have since enhanced. The bill is a compromiseand insofar as it is positive in seeking to redressdiscrimination in the areas of agenda identity andsexual orientation, I support it. On the other hand thebill highlights that the government is not on the righttrack. The government should be governing for allVictorians with principle, morals and commitment tothe cause about which it mouths platitudes rather thanrunning away at the first sign of dissent from minoritygroups or individuals and coming up with half-bakedcompromises.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Third reading

For Hon. M. R. THOMSON (Minister for SmallBusiness), Hon. J. M. Madden (Minister for Sport andRecreation) — By leave, I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I thank honourable members from both sides for theirconsidered contributions: the Honourables CarloFurletti, Glenyys Romanes, Roger Hallam, ElaineCarbines, Andrew Olexander, Dianne Hadden, DavidDavis, Bob Smith, Marie Luckins, Sang Nguyen,Andrea Coote, Jenny Mikakos and Peter Katsambanis.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

Remaining stages

Passed remaining stages.

JURIES BILL

Council’s amendments and Assembly’s amendment

Message from Assembly relating to following Councilamendments considered:

1. Clause 68, line 20, omit “(3)” and insert “(2)”.

JURIES BILL


2. Schedule 1, page 63, after line 16 insert —

“6. A person who is released on bail.”.

Assembly’s message:

Council’s amendment 1 agreed with.Council’s amendment 2 disagreed with but followingamendment agreed to:

‘Schedule 1, page 63, after line 16 insert —

“6. A person who has been charged with an indictableoffence and is released on bail in respect of thatoffence.”.’.


That the Council do not insist on their amendment with whichthe Assembly have disagreed and agree to the amendmentnow made by the Assembly in the bill.

Briefly, the government is proposing anotheramendment to the bill. Two amendments were made bythis house — one was agreed to in the other place andthe other was not. The government proposes thatalthough people should not be disqualified fromexercising their rights and obligations to serve on jurieswithout good reason the community must haveconfidence in the jury system and in the institution oftrial by jury, which is an essential element of ourdemocratic society. The amendment which has beenmade by the Assembly and which the government asksthis house to consider provides an appropriate balancebetween those considerations — that is, that peoplewho are on bail for an indictable offence be excludedfrom serving on juries.

Hon. C. A. FURLETTI (Templestowe) — On theamendment, Mr Deputy President, I endorse thecomments of the Leader of the Government that no-onechallenges the role of the jury and the fundamental andcritical role the jury system plays in our system ofcriminal justice. It plays a pivotal role as part of thejudicial system that we all enjoy as part of the heart ofour democracy.

The nature of the jury system demands that its integrityand credibility be protected and preserved and that theperception of that integrity by those who are part of andaffected by that system must be maintained at all costs.If the system is to survive it is essential that it has thesupport and the backing of the people to whom itapplies and whom it affects.

The community does not regard any interference withthe jury system in a favourable light. I will refer brieflyto most recent public instance of adulteration of theprocess, that of the John Laws case in New South

Wales, which was very adversely received by thecommunity. Indeed, the accused was fortunate not tohave been incarcerated for his blatant disregard of theimportance and significance of the integrity to which Ihave referred.

Earlier this year the opposition sought an amendment tothe Juries Bill to provide that anyone on bail should besuspended from being a candidate for jury duty. Thefundamental basis for the proposed amendment wasthat the condition of bail was discretionary. I think Isaid in the second-reading debate, or at least at thecommittee stage, that the basic condition of bail iscustody without detention, that bail in itself is so closeto one of the other disqualifying factors that it is adiscretionary outcome of an application to be grantedbail. It is not something that is as of right but somethingthat needs to be applied for, and a person is releasedfrom custody on terms and conditions, generally withthe provision of security and generally on the basis thatthat person can afford to satisfy the conditions of bail.

I indicated that bail of itself is not a matter of right butis custody without detention. It is therefore afundamental tenet that while somebody in custody isprohibited from acting as a juror, anybody on bailshould also be suspended. As I mentioned in that samedebate, the fact that somebody is on bail of itselfchanges the rights and status of that person in thecommunity.

The opposition is therefore pleased that the governmentconsidered the amendment proposed by this house andhas, by proposing the subsequent amendment,acknowledged that it was wrong in the first instance.The Attorney-General in the other place hasacknowledged that the community had expressedconcerns and has listened to the objections of, forexample, the Law Institute of Victoria and otherpractitioners in the area.

I was somewhat disappointed that the Attorney-Generalin my view condescendingly acknowledged that theconcerns expressed in this house and the community, toquote his words, ‘had some merit’. It appears that thegovernment simply could not accept that theopposition’s amendments were appropriate and so wasunable to accept them in toto. The government has said,‘Given that the opposition’s amendments go too far, wewill propose an alternative’. The alternative is a genuinehalf-baked and unworkable compromise that takes themiddle course, and unfortunately the situation is notone where a compromise will work.

Unfortunately there is no halfway position. I notice theLeader of the House is shaking her head, but

JURIES BILL


unfortunately she does not have the capacity tounderstand the differences.

Hon. M. M. Gould — Since 1967 people on bailhave been able to sit on juries through a selectionprocess that the courts have administered over manyyears.

Hon. C. A. FURLETTI — I hope the Leader of theHouse has finished. What is it that differentiates anaccused offender on bail for the commission of anindictable offence from an accused offender on bail forthe commission of a summary offence? If thegovernment can explain the difference that may explainfurther the basis for this amendment.

I am uncertain about what the government is seeking toachieve. It presents a worse conundrum than what thegovernment proposed earlier. How will the disqualifiedjuror be identified, given the removal of the mechanismthat was in place for some element of jury vetting andanalysis of prospective jurors? This compromise in theview of the Liberal Party, like most compromises, willlead to complexities and anomalies the Liberal Partyamendment would have avoided.

When the bill was debated in this place during thesecond-reading and committee stages the Liberal Partysaid it would not block the proposed legislation if itreturned to this house but that the outcome of thegovernment’s rejecting the Liberal Party’s amendmentwould be on its head. The view of the Liberal Party hasnot changed, and it believes the compromise thegovernment has arrived at will exacerbate the problemsrather than deal with them.

Therefore, although the Liberal Party does not opposethe bill, it will monitor its implementation and examineits effect on the jury system in this state.

Hon. R. M. HALLAM (Western) — The Leader ofthe Government invites the chamber not to insist uponan amendment that was framed when the Juries Billwas debated in his place some time ago. I hope she isreassured to learn that the National Party shall supportthe motion. I hope she is not surprised to learn that thatis the National Party’s view, because when the JuriesBill was debated members of the National Party put thegovernment on notice.

We said that although we saw the amendment framed atthat time as being important and appropriate we werenot prepared to imperil the bill, and that although wewould pass on the amendment with good grace andasked the government to earnestly consider it, we sawother aspects of the Juries Bill as being of such momentthat we did not want to put it at risk.

In passing I make the point that the Juries Bill is animportant bill that had its genesis in the workundertaken by the previous administration. While I putthe Leader of the Government at ease about the fact thatwe will be supporting the motion, I shall make somecomments about the circumstance in which we findourselves.

This is a house of review and here is a classic exampleof that role being undertaken. When the Juries Billcame before this chamber earlier, in its wisdom itsuggested two amendments, one of which was simplytypographical but the other of which was seen to beimportant. We said it was totally inappropriate for aperson in the community on bail to be either entitled orrequired to be empanelled as a juror. The concept ofhaving a person on bail acting as a juror is preposterous,and that view would be supported across thecommunity. What we see now emerging as somehalf-baked compromise underscores the concern thatwas expressed in this chamber.

The Attorney-General is now saying that what we haveat risk is community confidence in the entire legalsystem and that this compromise is designed to protectthat confidence. From our perspective the reverseapplies: the confidence of the community in the legalsystem is more likely to be eroded by the knowledgethat a person arraigned before the courts and chargedwith a serious crime can subsequently act as a juror in acase concerning another charge. That is the issue ofconfidence.

At the time the debate took place in this chambermembers of the National Party clearly expressedconcern about the impact that would have upon otherjurors. One can only speculate about the impact thenews that a member of the jury panel was a person onbail for a serious offence would have halfway through acase. Add to that the fact that we are drawing a clearand unwarranted distinction, a point the HonourableCarlo Furletti referred to a moment ago and a point thatwas made in the chamber when the bill was firstdebated — the inequity of drawing a distinctionbetween a person who is on bail and a person who isremanded in custody.

The difference may be nothing more than the ability ofthe person charged to raise the bail. It may simply be aquestion of whether the charged person could raise thesurety and was prepared to meet the stipulations placedupon his or her return to the community. I hope nobodyis suggesting that a person on remand in custody wouldbe taken from custody to meet his or her responsibilityas an empanelled juror. Here we have the classicalternative of someone who happened to be able to raise

CONDUCT OF DEBATE


the bail apparently being given that responsibility.There is enormous inequity in that, and we foresaw theconfidence of the community being eroded.

In good faith this chamber suggested to the governmentthat it should re-examine the question of whether thosewho were in the community on bail should be entitledto be empanelled as jurors. It was made plain at thetime that that recognised that a person charged with anoffence is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Herewe have a circumstance where the legal system itself issaying, ‘Hang on, there is sufficient prima facieevidence in this case to suggest that we should beimposing some restrictions on the basis upon which thisperson has returned to the community’. In other words,while there is a presumption of innocence there is also apresumption of a prima facie case. That is a bad basisupon which to be establishing the principle of drawingjurors from the community.

The bill went back to the other place and thegovernment, to its credit, considered the amendmentcarefully. We are told that on reflection theAttorney-General believed our concerns had somemerit. So far so good. The problem is that he could notbring himself to acknowledge that maybe someone elsehad a better idea than him. What he did was come upwith a half-baked compromise that says, ‘We shouldonly have the restriction in respect of a person who hasbeen charged with any indictable offence’.

I suggest that is half-baked because I went to those Irespect highly in the field of jurisprudence and askedthem to define for me the difference between whatconstitutes an indictable offence on the one hand and asummary offence on the other. Those I respect highly,when invited to give me that distinction, were unable todo so.

It is clear that persons charged with serious offencesunder the classification of summary offences may nowbe entitled, indeed required, when called to serve onjuries in this state. That is an unworkable compromise.It brings the government no credit at all and reflects thefact that the Attorney-General is not prepared to accepta suggestion from this chamber. The government talksabout the notion of a house of review, yet the firstchance this house gets to put a realistic alternative onthe table, the government turns it back. The suggestionis seen to be of a lesser standard because it comes fromthis chamber.

Notwithstanding those comments I repeat what I said atthe outset. The opposition parties stated when the billwas debated that although they saw great importance inthe amendment they had carefully framed they were not

prepared to imperil the bill. It is on that basis and notbecause of the compromise now framed by thegovernment that the opposition parties are prepared toagree to the motion.

Motion agreed to.

CONDUCT OF DEBATE

The PRESIDENT — Order! I shall respond tomatters raised by the Honourable Theo Theophanouslast week. Mr Theophanous sought clarification oncertain rulings from the Chair to assist members and toassist the smooth running of the house. He raised threespecific issues, and I now propose to deal with them inturn.

Reference to debates in the Assembly

Mr Theophanous indicated that on some occasionsmembers have been permitted to quote from theproceedings of the Assembly where the question ofconsistency of ministerial comments made inside andoutside the house has been an issue but on otheroccasions members quoting had been ruled out oforder.

As honourable members will be aware, standingorder 128 says that no member shall allude to anydebate in the Assembly in the same session. Anyrulings on this issue turn on what proceedings constitutedebate. It has long been an accepted part ofparliamentary practice that a number of matters whichare part of the normal routine of the house are excludedfrom the definition of debate even though a membermay be speaking, because there is no motion before thehouse. Such matters include the asking and answeringof questions, ministerial statements, personalexplanations and matters raised on the adjournment ofthe house. Previous rulings in this house by PresidentFry on 19 September 1978, President Mackenzie on25 February 1987 and President Hunt on 10 September1991 support this view.

It is therefore in order for members to quote directlyfrom the proceedings in the Assembly in the samesession where those proceedings include answers toquestions, members statements, ministerial statementsand matters raised on the adjournment. It is, however,not in order to quote from debates on motions beforethe Assembly or from debates on bills before thathouse. Should a member feel it necessary to refer todebates in the Assembly they should do so in the mostindirect way possible and paraphrase very succinctlywhat has been said. However, such a practice is



discouraged so that debates in this house will notsimply reflect debates in the Assembly.

Taking of points of order

Mr Theophanous has asked whether members areentitled to take points of order in certain circumstancesand referred to an example earlier this year wherefollowing a personal explanation he had attempted toraise a point of order which I had refused to hear.

Members are entitled to take points of order at any timeand as is the practice of the house it is desirable thatthey be taken at the first available opportunity.However, in relation to the taking of a point of orderfollowing a personal explanation it is firstly importantto restate standing order 120, which is:

By the indulgence of the Council a member may explainmatters of a personal nature, although there be no questionbefore the Council; but such matters may not be debated.

Any member raising a point of order following apersonal explanation must not attempt to debate thepersonal explanation under any guise. I appreciate thatit will be difficult to raise a point of order following apersonal explanation and not debate its content;however, any member who proceeds to do so will beruled out of order. I point out that the Clerks have beenable to find only one instance in 1988 in this housewhere a member raised a point of order in relation to apersonal explanation.

In relation to the particular instance referred to byMr Theophanous earlier this year, I concede that I mayhave been a little hasty in ruling him out of order but Iwas principally concerned that the provisions ofstanding order 120 be not infringed on that occasion.

To assist members in deciding whether a point of ordercan be raised following a personal explanation it mighthelp the house if I outline the guidelines governing thecontent of personal explanations. It is important toremember that personal explanations enable a memberto explain matters of a personal nature although there isno question before the house. Although leave is usuallygiven, members have no right to expect it to beautomatically granted. Members should be remindedthat making a personal explanation by the indulgence ofthe Council is completely at the Chair’s discretion. It istherefore the practice of the house that any memberwishing to make a personal explanation should informthe President beforehand and make a copy of aproposed explanation available for examination. Anypersonal explanation which has not been the subject ofsuch consultation will not be permitted to be made.

A personal explanation is allowed to correct a statementwhere the member may have inadvertently misled thehouse. It must be brief and constitute a simple statementof fact, and it must not simply engage in argument ondifferences of opinion.

Providing that a personal explanation meets thesecriteria it would normally be allowed and would inmany cases obviate the need for a point of order to betaken.

Issues involving other members

Finally, Mr Theophanous referred to membersattempting to raise matters on the adjournment debatewhere they might ask a minister to inquire into an issuethat involves another member, without resorting to asubstantive motion. Members will be well aware thatthey may only challenge the conduct of a member upona substantive motion which requires a distinct vote ofthe house. Having said that, this practice does notnecessarily preclude the house from discussing theactivities of any of its members. However, membersmust be particularly careful in this regard; offensivewords may not be used against any member and allimputations of improper motives and all personalreflections are highly disorderly. Matters raised on theadjournment, whether they concern other members ornot, must also meet the guidelines governing suchproceedings. The Chair will consider whether anyissues raised against other members can be discussedon the merits of each case but members are advised thatI will not tolerate the forms of the house being used tocircumvent the long-established practice requiring asubstantive motion where allegations are made againstmembers.

In relation to the particular issue raised on theadjournment on Tuesday, 29 August, to whichMr Theophanous referred on Wednesday last, he didnot name any member but referred the minister to anarticle in the newspaper that day. This matter hadreceived some publicity and could have beenconsidered borderline, but because Mr Theophanoushad made his request in general terms and had notnamed any member he was permitted to proceed.

I trust that this ruling clarifies the matters raised byMr Theophanous.


Adjournment


ADJOURNMENT


That the Council, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday,3 October.

Motion agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT


That the house do now adjourn.

Wesley Crisis Centre

Hon. W. I. SMITH (Silvan) — I ask the Leader ofthe Government, representing the Minister for SmallBusiness, who is not in the chamber, to direct a matterto the attention of the Minister for Housing in the otherplace. The state government has announced that a newcrisis accommodation centre is being planned forRingwood to tackle homelessness in the outer easternsuburbs, and I welcome that announcement. TheWesley Crisis Centre is the only service in the areaworking on crisis accommodation, and it placesbetween 1200 and 1500 people, including families andindividuals, in temporary accommodation every threemonths. It is a greatly needed crisis accommodationcentre and I look forward to it being built.

Other services are involved in the placement ofhomeless people, and I would like the government toannounce when it will build the centre because there isa need to coordinate services between a range ofgroups. When will the government open the centre andwhen will it be operational?

The PRESIDENT — Order! I advise honourablemembers that the Leader of the Government willanswer questions on behalf of the Minister for SmallBusiness.

Community care: services

Hon. KAYE DARVENIZA (Melbourne West) — Idirect to the attention of the Minister for IndustrialRelations, who tonight is representing the Minister forSmall Business, who represents in this place theMinister for Community Services in the other place therecently released discussion paper New Partnerships inCommunity Care which undertook to review thedelivery of community care services in Victoria.

Given that this paper outlines a set of proposals thattogether provide a new framework for the delivery ofcare services and that it is severely critical of theprevious government’s approach to community care —in particular its insistence on using market mechanisms

to fund welfare services — will the minister indicatehow the delivery of community care services acrossVictoria and, indeed, throughout my electorate in thewest, is affected by the recommendations?

Snowy River

Hon. R. M. HALLAM (Western) — I raise for theattention of the Minister for Energy and Resources herrepeated assertions as the minister directly responsiblethat a 28 per cent environmental flow down the SnowyRiver is a realistic and achievable commitment. Giventhe enormous consequential effects of that commitmentnot only for Victoria but for New South Wales, SouthAustralia and the commonwealth government, I ask theminister to explain what relevance she puts on theoutcome of the debate at the recent Labor Party nationalconference which supported increased environmentalflows for the Snowy River but critically stopped shortof committing to any specific target.

Argyle Square, Carlton

Hon. C. A. FURLETTI (Templestowe) — I raisefor the attention of Minister for Industrial Relationsrepresenting the Premier a matter which follows onfrom the matter I raised on 11 April this year during theadjournment debate regarding Argyle Square, Carlton.

At that time I raised with the minister for the attentionof the Premier the fact that the former Kennettgovernment had committed to the renaming of part ofArgyle Square Piazza Italia. At that stage I asked thePremier to use his influence to intervene with theMelbourne City Council so the matter could beprogressed.

I received a response from the Premier dated 12 May inwhich he said that he had asked departmental officers toinvestigate the issue and provide him with a briefing.Knowing how these things work, on 26 May I againwrote to the Premier and said that given the bipartisanapproach to issues such as this I would be more thanhappy to brief him because of my background with thisissue. I have since written three letters to the Premierasking for an acknowledgment of that letter, but havereceived none.

Hon. W. R. Baxter — Open and accountablegovernment!

Hon. C. A. FURLETTI — Yes, it indicates openand accountable government. It is obvious that thematter is now static. Given the current state of theMelbourne City Council and the fact that it is doingvery little, I ask the minister to advise the Premier that itis now time for the government to take the issue away

ADJOURNMENT


from the Melbourne City Council and in a bipartisanmanner make a commitment, as did the previousgovernment, to Victoria’s Italian Australian communitythat action will be taken as soon as possible.

Rail: regional links

Hon. D. G. HADDEN (Ballarat) — I raise for theattention of the Minister for Energy and Resourcesrepresenting the Minister for Transport in the otherplace a matter of some importance. Yesterday I had thepleasure of attending the Bracks government launch ofthe fast rail links project and the announcement of a$550 million injection into Victoria’s rail infrastructurefor the introduction of a high-speed rail service betweenMelbourne and the four provincial regional centres ofBallarat, Bendigo, Geelong and Traralgon.

The first rail connection to Ballarat was from Geelongand opened in April 1862. A high-speed rail service toBallarat will have significant economic and socialbenefits for my electorate. The passenger rail servicefrom Ballarat to Ararat was closed by the formerKennett government in 1994 and the freight service wasclosed in 1995. V/Line Passenger, part of the NationalExpress Group Australia, has operated the V/Linefranchise from August 1999 and has a 10-yearfranchise.

The National Express group commissioned a strategicreview of coach and rail services in country Victoria,including reopening the Ballarat to Ararat rail line, andpresented a summary of its review to a public hearingon 27 July at Ararat. V/Line Passenger and the NationalExpress group support the reintroduction of a passengerrail service between Ballarat and Ararat. As well, theRural City of Ararat commissioned a report into theextension of a rail link to Ararat in July. The Rural Cityof Ararat, the western regional council and otherregional organisations support and provide a cogentargument for the return of passenger rail services toArarat.

I therefore urge the Minister for Transport to giveurgent attention and consideration to the reinstatementof the passenger rail service between Ballarat andArarat in line with the fast rail links project under thegovernment’s Partnerships Victoria policy.

The PRESIDENT — Order! I ask honourablemembers to lower their noise levels because it isdifficult for Hansard to hear.

Beach Road, Black Rock: black spot funding

Hon. C. A. STRONG (Higinbotham) — I raise forthe attention of the Minister for Energy and Resources

representing the Minister for Transport in the otherplace a request I have from constituents who live at190 and 191 Beach Road, Black Rock. They writeabout the danger of the stretch of Beach Road betweenBay and Balcombe roads. The road has a bend and thebike track and footpath run close to it. The residentsdraw attention to three accidents that have happened inthe past 12 months where cars have left the road andcome across the footpath and the bike track.

One of those accidents involved a cyclist beingknocked off his bicycle and another a pedestrian whomissed death by a couple of feet. They request that theroad be redesigned at that point so that it is reducedfrom four lanes to two lanes from Bay Road through toBalcombe Road, which would give greater security topeople who use the bicycle track and the footpath inthat dangerous part of the road.

I ask the minister to draw the matter to the attention ofthe Minister for Transport to see if black spot fundingor other specific remedies are available to redesign theroad in that area.

Electricity: safety certificates

Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern) — I raise forthe attention of the Minister for Energy and Resourcesthe introduction, about a year ago, of certificates whereelectrical installations are made. I do not think anyonewould object to the issue of electrical safety certificateswhere new or additional installations are being made. Idraw the minister’s attention to a problem emerging incases where an electrician attends the same premises ona regular occasion for minor maintenance work.

It seems an unnecessary impost, both in financial andtime costs, if a certificate has to be issued on each andevery occasion. Recently an example was drawn to myattention where an electrician attends a large piggerynear the village of Gunbower in my electorate,sometimes several times a day, but at least once a week.Clearly that electrician is known to the proprietor of thepiggery; it is known that he is a licensed electrician; andit is known that the standard of his work is up toscratch. Where there are regular attendances at the samepremises by the same electrician there should be acapacity to at least have a certificate issued annually ormonthly, and certainly not on every occasion.

This seems to be a matter that the Office of the ChiefElectrical Inspector might profitably cast its mind to. Iinvite the minister to investigate the matter to see if amore efficient system can be put in place, at the sametime bearing in mind the community desire for safeelectrical installations.

ADJOURNMENT


Braybrook: sport and recreation facilities

Hon. S. M. NGUYEN (Melbourne West) — I referthe Minister for Sport and Recreation to a communityforum last week conducted by the Braybrook SocialDevelopment Group where residents and committeegroups discussed issues that they felt were important tothem and their local community. The lack of sport andrecreation facilities and programs for young people,especially those from non-English-speakingbackgrounds, was identified as a need that is not beingmet. Will the minister advise the house what thegovernment is doing to meet the needs of young people,especially those from non-English-speakingbackgrounds, in the provision of sports and recreationprograms and facilities?

Maroondah: financial counselling services

Hon. A. P. OLEXANDER (Silvan) — In theabsence of the Minister for Small Business, whorepresents the Minister for Community Services in theother place, I seek the assistance of the Leader of theGovernment. Last week I received a letter from themayor of the City of Maroondah, Cr Peter Gurr, about arecent assessment of people who access generalistfinancial counselling services in the city. For the year1999–2000 it was found that 520 people requiredassistance with their personal financial crises. I wassurprised to learn from Cr Gurr’s letter that these arenot people who have gambling or specialist financialproblems, but people with serious debt problemsbecause they are low-income earners, social securityrecipients or struggling small business people who arenot able to afford to go to a financial planner or anaccountant.

For some time now a local agency, Eastern AccessCommunity Health, has provided a generalist andspecialist financial services program to the residents ofthe City of Maroondah. Funding for those programs hascome from grants from the Community Support Fundadministered by the minister’s department. I amadvised that late last year the Department of HumanServices announced that it would now only extend suchfinancial counselling services to problem gamblers andthat no community support funding would be madeavailable for the generalist financial support servicesafter 30 June 2001.

I am reliably informed that since the inception of theCommunity Support Fund under the Kennettgovernment, funding for financial counselling serviceswas made available for both problem gamblers as wellas for people having general financial problems.Unfortunately, this decision will mean that there will be

no generalist financial support and counselling servicein Maroondah, and I dare say other municipalitiesthroughout the state, from the middle of next year.

I ask the minister why her department changed itscriteria for funding of financial support and counsellingprograms from the Community Support Fund, and howit differentiates between problem gamblers withfinancial problems and people with generalist financialproblems. I also ask if it is the minister’s intention toextend core funding for such services separately fromwithin her department’s budget.

Mildura hospital

Hon. B. W. BISHOP (North Western) — I refer theMinister for Industrial Relations representing theMinister for Health in another place to the appointmentof the advisory board of the new Mildura hospital. Ashonourable members are aware, the new hospital isprivately owned and operated under contract to thegovernment for community use. I also note there is anopen day next Saturday, 9 September, which Mr Bestand I will attend. We expect many communitymembers will avail themselves of the opportunity tolook through the hospital and also ask any questionsthey may have.

While the hospital management will obviously have itsown consulting linkages out in our communities, Iwelcome the appointment of an advisory board whichwill provide a formal platform and opportunity forcommunity input into the services provided by thehospital. I ask the Minister for Health to take intoaccount the sensitive nature of the history of the newhospital in Mildura when appointing the new advisoryboard so that the maximum community benefit can beachieved.

Apex Club of Mansfield

Hon. E. G. STONEY (Central Highlands) — I seekthe assistance of the Minister for Industrial Relations topass on a question to the Minister for ConsumerAffairs. I have received a letter from the Apex Club ofMansfield under the names of the president, JoeHutchinson; secretary, Donald Howie; and treasurer,Ian Keys, relating to the effects of the FundraisingAppeals Act on the club. I am well aware theHonourable Bill Forwood has raised the same issue onbehalf of the Apex Club at Mortlake. I declare aninterest in the Mansfield Apex club as I was thepresident a few years ago. Mansfield Apex club is wellregarded as one of the leading Apex clubs in Victoria. Itwas formed back in the 1950s.

ADJOURNMENT


The issues raised by the Mansfield Apex club are many.They are listed and were also raised by the HonourableBill Forwood. This highlights that many clubs aroundVictoria are experiencing difficulties with the act. Theletter adds weight to the appeal to the minister tore-examine the issue and perhaps give assistance tosmall clubs operating under the act. I ask the minister toconsider the matter.

Teachers: scholarships

Hon. P. R. HALL (Gippsland) — I refer theMinister for Sport and Recreation representing theMinister for Education in another place to the recentlyannounced government teaching scholarship schemethat we are told will be used to attract teachers todifficult-to-staff schools. I am supportive of the schemeand in years past was the recipient of a similar scheme.In those days they were called teaching studentships.As recipients of those studentships we were bonded toteach for three years on completion of our teachertraining and directed to fill a position at a school of thedepartment’s choosing, which is the key point I wish toraise tonight.

In those days we had central employment and underthat system the department directed studentship holdersto schools where they were needed. Currently, schoolswith vacancies freely advertise those positions andteachers apply for them. There is no centralemployment.

I wish to know how the government will ensure thatscholarship holders will be required to take up positionsin difficult-to-staff schools. Will the governmentactually nominate schools that are deemed difficult tostaff and require people who receive scholarships toapply only to those particular schools, or will we goback to a system where recipients of scholarships aredirected to take up positions in schools that are difficultto staff?

At certain times many country schools find it difficultto attract staff. If the government is diligent with thescheme, it has the ability to benefit some of thosecountry schools. I seek advice from the minister abouthow she can ensure that recipients of studentscholarships will help schools with the greatest staffingdifficulties.

Hospitals: refusal of treatment

Hon. G. K. RICH-PHILLIPS (Eumemmerring) —I raise with the Minister for Industrial Relations, as therepresentative in this house of the Minister for Health, arepresentation I received from Dr Helga Kuhse, an

honorary senior research fellow at the Centre forHuman Bioethics at Monash University. As honourablemembers may be aware, the Medical Treatment Act1988 allows people suffering from illness to ask theirmedical practitioners to prepare refusal of treatmentcertificates. The effect of those certificates is that theyalert medical practitioners in the event of patientsbecoming incapacitated that they do not wish to receivefurther treatment.

I am informed by Dr Kuhse that while the certificatesystem has been working in Victoria for a number ofyears, there is currently no central register where thedetails of those certificates are held. That means that inthe event of patients who are in and out of hospital anumber of times and treated by a number of differentpractitioners, there is a very real risk that their wisheswith respect to refusing treatment may not be compliedwith simply because the treating medical practitionersare not aware of the certificates they have lodged. I askthe Minister for Health to investigate the matter andconsider whether a statewide or national central registershould be established to keep the details of those refusalof treatment certificates.

Waverley Park

Hon. N. B. LUCAS (Eumemmerring) — I raisewith the Minister for Sport and Recreation theWaverley Park fiasco. When I referred the minister tothe matter last night he said in his reply that discussionshad been held with the Australian Football Leagueabout the ongoing viability of the AFL competition andclubs.

The fact that the government now accepts that viabilityof the competition and clubs is at stake appears to haveresulted from the suggestion of the Minister for Gamingto the City of Greater Dandenong that it should applyfor heritage listing of Waverley Park.

The Dandenong Examiner of 4 September reported thattwo years ago when in opposition Mr Pandazopouloswas in the vanguard of the Save Waverley campaignand was urging Premier Kennett to compulsorilyacquire the ground. Mr Pandazopoulos, now theMinister for Gaming, is quoted in the newspaper thisweek as saying that compulsory acquisition was out ofthe question.

A further article appearing on page 2 of yesterday’sDandenong Examiner quoted the chief executiveofficer of the Kangaroos Football Club, Greg Miller, assaying that:

… the heritage listing is a disaster … for all football fans.

ADJOURNMENT


He referred to the fact that the AFL will have to borrow$30 million to pay off Colonial Stadium.

Given that the potentially disastrous financial effects ofthe heritage listing on both the AFL and league clubssuch as North Melbourne, St Kilda, Hawthorn andFootscray are a direct consequence of the activities ofthe Minister for Gaming, will the minister advise thehouse what the government intends to do to support theAFL and league clubs to get them out of the financialmess they are in, which it appears was caused by one ofits ministers?

Housing: Shepparton estate

Hon. E. J. POWELL (North Eastern) — I ask theMinister for Industrial Relations to pass on a matter tothe Minister for Small Business, as the representative inthis house of the Minister for Housing. Honourablemembers may recall my raising a number of times inthe house the need for upgrading a public housingestate in Shepparton called the Parkside estate. I chairedan advisory committee that developed a strategy reportfor the Minister for Housing, who wrote to me on8 August accepting the committee’s recommendationsand broad principles and adopting option A as a broadstrategy. That is the committee’s preferred option forthe housing development. It is a $5 milliondevelopment over three years, and I thank the ministerfor that decision.

I have been contacted by a reputable local organisationthat has asked to be given an opportunity to put a bid infor the redevelopment of the Parkside estate. It is a localorganisation which employs 50 people, includingengineers, planners and designers. I am told it is thebiggest regional office outside Melbourne. The peoplein that organisation are prepared to manage the wholeproject. They have done that before, as they are alsoproject managers. They are not asking for specialtreatment, and they are prepared to compete withMelbourne contractors as well as other local ruralcontractors. Shepparton has many expert localcontractors for such developments in rural Victoria. Itwill be a very large project that will stimulate strongemployment opportunities in the Shepparton region. Iask the minister to make a commitment that the localorganisations and contractors will be given anopportunity to offer expressions of interest to bid forthat important project.

Hospitals: intensive care beds

Hon. B. C. BOARDMAN (Chelsea) — I raise withthe Minister for Industrial Relations, as therepresentative in this house of the Minister for Health, a

serious and distressing matter concerning Mrs SylviaHolmes, a patient in the intensive care unit (ICU) of theFrankston Hospital, who is currently in critical care ona ventilator. As I understand it, Mrs Holmes is sufferingfrom a condition where blood is flowing freely abouther brain and she requires urgent neurosurgicaltreatment in an intensive care environment.

As of midday today staff at the Frankston HospitalICU, who have performed quite extraordinarilythroughout the treatment of Mrs Holmes’s condition,were still attempting to locate a bed with an intensivecare facility, in accordance with the patient’s initial andsubsequent diagnoses made up to 30 hours ago. Thesituation is that there are no special ICU beds availablein greater Melbourne. In fact, the family was advisedthat they may have to treat and transport Mrs Holmesinterstate to find an appropriate facility.

The government was notified last night about the case.Three separate emails were sent by the family to boththe Premier and the Minister for Health about theseriousness of Mrs Holmes’s condition. As of this datenone of those emails has been replied to. It appears thatthe Premier and the Minister for Health do not viewsomeone’s life being in jeopardy as of sufficientimportance to justify the demonstration of theircompassion by replying.

The first time the family received any notification fromthe government was when it was contacted by the chiefexecutive officer of the Peninsula Health CareNetwork, Mr Chris Fox, who informed the family theremay have been a misdiagnosis in Mrs Holmes’scondition. I sincerely hope there has been amisdiagnosis; however, it is unacceptable that thegovernment and the Department of Human Services didnot respond when a number of attempts had been madeto bring the situation to their attention. It is amazingthat Mrs Holmes’s condition has changed sodramatically. The case has generated some publicity,and Mrs Holmes’s daughter-in-law has spoken on theNeil Mitchell show.

I ask the government to put politics aside for onemoment and to stop acting disgracefully and dosomething about the situation. A lot of rhetoric abouthealth services has been heard since the election, butclearly the situation is critical. I ask the minister as amatter of the utmost priority to stop playing politicswith the issue and ensure that Mrs Holmes receives thenecessary medical care that should include anindependent neurological examination to confirm thelevel of medical care she requires and ensure that that iscarried out with the urgency the situation deserves.

ADJOURNMENT


World Economic Forum

Hon. P. A. KATSAMBANIS (Monash) — I ask theMinister for Industrial Affairs to refer a matter to theattention of the Minister for Small Business as a matterof urgency. The matter relates to representations I havehad from a number of small businesses in my electoratethat fear they will be directly affected by theunnecessary and unreasonable actions that will be takennext week by an organisation known as S11 in order todisrupt the World Economic Forum, which is for thefirst time being held in Melbourne.

Honourable members would be aware of both theforum — a great coup for Victoria secured by theformer Kennett government — as well as the proposedactions of the fringe group. A number of smallbusinesses are located in the area in and around theCrown Casino complex where the World EconomicForum is to be held, including small retailers, cafes andrestaurants, and a number of other small businessessuch as information technology companies and the like.

A significant number of the small businesses havecontacted my office fearing that the disruption likely tobe caused by the planned demonstrations by the S11group will impact detrimentally on them. They fear thatthe proposed blockade of streets will prevent them andtheir staff from attending their premises and will alsodeter their customers from doing business in thatperiod.

Government members may scoff at their apprehension,but it is a real concern of small businesses that, in manyways, they have been trampled on by the government. Icall on the Minister for Small Business to highlight tothe house what she has done to protect small businessoperators in my electorate from any unwarranted andunnecessary intrusions into their businesses. If nothinghas been done to date I call on her to act to ensure thatsmall businesses are protected and the livelihoods ofbusiness operators are not put at risk.

Toxic waste

Hon. J. W. G. ROSS (Higinbotham) — I ask theMinister for Energy and Resources to direct a matter tothe attention of the Minister for Environment andConservation in the other place. It concerns the illegaltoxic waste dump discovered last week at Melbourne’sDocklands. It was yet another in a series of illegal toxicwaste dumps, many of which have been discoverednear my electorate. I particularly refer to a cyanide spillin Dandenong North.

Only two facilities are available to cater for toxic wastedisposal: one at Tullamarine and the other at PWM inTaylors Road, Lyndhurst, close to the border of myelectorate. The facility is accessible by road through myelectorate. Estimates vary but the Tullamarine facilityhas only about 12 to 18 months to continue as a toxicwaste disposal dump. That means the Lyndhurst facilitywill become the only place available in themetropolitan area.

My concern relates to the hazardous waste managementcommittee established by the Kennett government andreconvened by the present Minister for Environmentand Conservation. That committee reported on the issueon 1 June last and the minister has sought communityconsultation. When in opposition the Labor Partyrefused to acknowledge that any problems existed.

As the facilities progressively close, honestmanufacturers — I have a large concentration ofmanufacturing industries in my electorate, particularlyin Braeside and Moorabbin — have no alternative butto allow toxic substances such as cyanide andpolychlorinated biphenyl compounds to accumulate andto store them in their manufacturing facilities on site.Throughout the state thousands of sites containhazardous waste. What progress has the governmentmade to address the looming issue of the disposal ofhazardous industrial waste, particularly in my electorateand at the waste disposal facility at Lyndhurst?

Better Pools program

Hon. M. T. LUCKINS (Waverley) — The matter Idirect to the attention of the Minister for Sport andRecreation concerns the Better Pools program hereferred to during question time today. As he shouldknow, Monash City Council proposes to construct anew aquatic facility at Glen Waverley for use byMonash ratepayers. The total project cost is estimatedto be $16.6 million, an increase from the originalestimate of $13.7 million. Last year the council wassuccessful in gaining a $2.5 million grant from theKennett government.

As the minister should also be aware, the City of Caseyhas received a $5-million grant to build a similar sizefacility. I refer to a letter from the Premier to the mayorof the City of Monash. He states:

As you are probably aware, the Better Pools program wasestablished recognising the often substantial funding requiredfor building major aquatic leisure facilities. For this reason themaximum available grant under this program was increasedto $2.5 million from the $500 000 previously available underthe facility development funding program.

ADJOURNMENT


A maximum allocation is applied to ensure that a number ofcouncils in both metropolitan and rural areas have theopportunity to access the funds available in any fundinground.

A recent review of the program prior to the release of thesecond year’s funding guidelines has resulted in retaining themaximum ceiling of $2.5 million for this reason.

Whilst I appreciate the commitments made by council to thisfacility, I regret that I am unable to agree to your request for$1.5 million in addition to the $2.5 million already committedthrough Better Pools.

As I said, the City of Casey has received $5 millionfrom the government — that is, $2.5 million from theprevious government and an additional $2.5 millionfrom the Bracks government. However, the governmenthas refused to provide the additional funds required forthe finalisation of the Glen Waverley aquatic centre —that is, only $1.5 million — not the $2.5 million thatwas awarded to the City of Casey. Will the ministerexplain the discrepancy and consider the funding needsof the City of Monash to establish a good aquaticfacility in that city?

Fishing: rock lobsters

Hon. R. H. BOWDEN (South Eastern) — I seekthe assistance of the Minister for Energy andResources. I refer to an issue that is causingconsiderable disquiet in and around San Remo inGippsland West. Many families associated with therock lobster fishing industry are becoming increasinglyunhappy and concerned about their welfare. They awaitthe government’s announcement of the results of theconsiderable research program it has conducted overthe past nine months or more on access to that resource.

Will the minister be mindful of the fact that a largenumber of families have been in the industry forgenerations and have considerable investments in therock lobster fishing industry? When considering thereport that is now with her department I ask the ministerto be mindful of the fact that the retention ofsatisfactory economic access to the rewards of theindustry is an important factor in the continuation ofthis important activity in a valuable part of regional andrural Victoria.

When the government makes its decision abouteconomic access for rock lobster fishing in the easternzone of Victoria, particularly in the San Remo region,will the minister ensure that employment considerationsare also protected?

Electricity: supply

Hon. PHILIP DAVIS (Gippsland) — I refer anissue to the attention of the Minister for Energy andResources. Victoria’s electricity crisis last Februarydemonstrated the failure in ministerial responsibility ofthe Bracks government. The minister’s task force reporton security of supply, released today — I thank theminister for providing me with a printed copy of thereport, which is superior to the faxed copy I receivedearlier today and makes easier reading — highlights thecoincidence of unchecked industrial action during thepeak summer demand conditions that caused the powersupply crisis.

The government’s mishandling was evident first in itsfailure to intervene in the industrial action at Yallournand subsequently in its overreaction in imposingdraconian restrictions to the extent of facilitatingelectricity sales interstate while Victorians weresuffering from the withdrawal of services. Further, as aknee-jerk reaction, the government, through thePremier, raised the prospect of the construction ofanother 1000-megawatt generator. Given that the taskforce outcome, as announced by the Premier today,concludes that Victoria does not require a large newbaseload generator, does this not demonstrate the realdifficulty for the electricity sector investors?

During question time the minister announced that anadvertising campaign commencing today will involvepersuading consumers to turn off their airconditionersduring extremely hot weather. Will the minister advisethe house whether this is the best the government cando to rebuild confidence in the electricity industry andsecure long-term investment?

Industrial Relations Victoria: review

Hon. BILL FORWOOD (Templestowe) — In theabsence of the Minister for Small Business, I raise anissue with the Minister for Industrial Relations. Iunderstand that Industrial Relations Victoria has abudget of nearly $10 million and that it is in the processof being established. I also understand that a decisionhas been made to commission a management review ofthis new entity. I wonder if the minister would care toinform the house of who is conducting the review, howmuch it is costing and whether it has been tendered.

Workcover: premiums

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS (East Yarra) — My matterthis evening is for the Minister for Sport and Recreationand concerns the issue of Workcover premiums and

ADJOURNMENT


their impact on sporting goods retailers and recreationsuppliers in my electorate.

The Snowgum company has a number of stores,including one in Malvern and another in GlenferrieRoad, Hawthorn. The Hawthorn store has experiencedan increase in its Workcover premiums of 56 per cent.This sort of increase has been experienced by a numberof other retailers. I have talked to golf equipment andcamping suppliers, and all of these stores haveexperienced increases in Workcover premiums.


Hon. D. McL. DAVIS — No, it impacts on thesporting goods retailers and the recreational industries. Imake the point to the minister that this is not caused bythe goods and services tax, because most sporting andrecreational goods have had the wholesale sales taxremoved and their prices have fallen since theintroduction of the GST. Prices have fallen by about3 per cent in the case of golf clubs. If the ministerwanted to check that, the Australian Competition andConsumer Commission web site goes into considerabledetail about the fall in the cost of sporting goodsfollowing the introduction of the GST. In that context, Imake the point that we will see a rise in the cost ofsporting and recreational goods due to the impact of theWorkcover premiums. I want to know what theminister intends to do and what he has done to preventthe rise in the cost of sporting and recreational goodswhich will flow from the government’s Workcoverpremium increases.

Bass Coast: sewerage dispute

Hon. K. M. SMITH (South Eastern) — I wish toaddress my adjournment matter to the Minister forEnergy and Resources representing the Minister forLocal Government in another place. I raise with theminister my grave concerns about the Bass Coast ShireCouncil as it appears to be working in conjunction withthe South Gippsland Conservation Society, which Ibelieve is guilty of extortion following the demands ofMr John Cuttriss, a member of that society, for$5000 to allow a sewerage connection to be made to anaged care hostel being built on a development inInverloch. The matter is reported on page 1 of theSentinel Times of 25 August and is of great concern.

The builder, in conjunction with the local communitygroup which was developing this aged care hostel,employed a local engineering company to design asewerage connection that ran along the boundary of amunicipal reserve. The plan was approved by the localsewerage authority and work commenced. In less than

half a day that work was stopped by the Bass Coastshire on the basis of a complaint made by Mrs SophieCuttriss that approximately 12 trees with 8 to 10 yearsof growth were to be removed to make way for thesewerage connection on a drainage easement in thearea. Work on the connection was put back severalweeks.

The local conservation group, led by Mr John Cuttrissand his wife Sophie, suggested to the builder that$5000 would allow the work to continue. Thedeveloper, who is a well-known and respected builderof aged care facilities, agreed to pay the money to allowthe job to continue. The easement was approved by thesewerage board and the local council had been advisedthat the job was to commence. I believe the developerwas the victim of extortion by the South GippslandConservation Society in conjunction with the BassCoast Shire Council led by Mayor Noel Maud, whowas formerly the president of the South GippslandConservation Society.

I ask the minister to investigate the activities of the BassCoast Shire Council in this disgraceful affair and toreport to the police for investigation the successfulextortion of the builder by the South GippslandConservation Council and its members. This is adisgrace and these people should be stopped andpunished.

Rail: port of Geelong link

Hon. I. J. COVER (Geelong) — It gives mepleasure to join the adjournment debate this evening,having missed last night’s adjournment. I take thisopportunity to thank honourable members who haveexpressed concern about my having to leave yesterdayon an urgent personal matter. Tonight I raise a matterfor the Minister for Ports.

Yesterday during question time the minister advised thehouse of the performance of the publicly owned port ofMelbourne during 1999–2000. At the same time theminister took the opportunity, by way of comparison, torefer to the privatisation of the regional port of Geelongwith the inference being that there were betteroutcomes for the publicly owned port than theprivatised port of Geelong.

Hon. R. M. Hallam — She had a swipe at Portlandas well.

Hon. I. J. COVER — I can only refer to Geelong inthis context but I recognise, as Mr Hallam says, that theminister took a swipe at Portland as well. I was amusedby it yesterday and I am still amused by it today. I drawthe attention of the minister to an article in the

ADJOURNMENT


September edition of Geelong Business News headed‘Port power — the port of Geelong is booming’. Thearticle, written by Kevin McCarthy, reports that the porthas ‘enjoyed another record trading year, handling over12 million tonnes of cargo in 1999–2000’. KevinMcCarthy also reports that the port is poised to become‘an even more important economic driver to the region’and ‘a powerful player in Victoria’s expandingmaritime trade’.

One of the keys to this progress is the extension of thestandard gauge rail track into the port and in particularto Lascelles wharf. The cost of that extension is in theorder of $12 million. I note that the ParliamentarySecretary for Infrastructure, Carlo Carli in anotherplace, says, ‘The reality is it has to be done’. At theelection last year the ALP promised $4.5 million to thisproject when the cost was estimated at $9 million; theALP promised half of the cost.

Can the minister advise the house of the currentposition in relation to fulfilling the government’selection commitment and increasing the government’scontribution so that it remains at 50 per cent of thefunding required, which is now estimated at$12 million?

Minister for Energy and Resources:consultation

Hon. R. A. BEST (North Western) — I raise withthe Minister for Energy and Resources proposedamendments to the Mineral Resources DevelopmentAct. I received a letter from the Coalition ofCommunities Against Open Cut Gold Mining inVictoria that I believe was intended for Labor members.It is dated 28 August and states:

Dear Member

Enclosed is a copy of a letter to the Hon. Candy Broad fromthe Coalition of Communities Against Open Cut Gold Miningin Victoria Inc. identifying significant concerns aboutproposed amendments to the MRD Act that have beenpresented to you in a consultation paper by the minerals andpetroleum policy department, Natural Resources andEnvironment.

The Bracks government committed itself to the people ofcountry Victoria to open and consultative processes. Theproposed amendments have quite obviously been party tolengthy discussions and agreements with sections of themining community which to date has excluded manycommunities affected by goldmining.

In addition I have a copy of a memo from the Ministerof Energy and Resources addressed to all governmentmembers. The subject is ‘Proposed amendments to the

Mineral Resources Development Act’, and it states, inpart:

Cabinet has prepared the drafting of amendments to theMRDA 1990 to ensure it continues to provide a balancedlegislative framework for the development and regulation ofthe mineral and exploration and mining industry inaccordance with Labor’s policies.

The memo later refers to compensation for:

… loss of possession, damage, severance, loss of opportunityand decrease in market value.

It also refers to confusion over the loss of amenitybeing limited to $10 000.

The minister has distributed the memo to governmentmembers and to about 200 other people in communitiesacross Victoria. She has been very selective in herconsultation, particularly about the time available forresponses to the proposed changes — until15 September.

The government purports to be an open andaccountable government. I therefore ask the ministernow whether she will make the document available toall sections of the community, particularly Liberal Partyand National Party members of Parliament, so properand extensive examination of the legislative changescan be scrutinised, particularly as the time frame forresponses to the proposed changes is limited to15 September, with an extension of one week ifrepresentations are made.


Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra) — My questionto the Minister for Industrial Relations relates to thetender that the minister advised the house duringquestion time she is calling for the economic impactstudy on the controversial recommendations of Labor’sindustrial relations task force. I was very pleased tohear that, unlike the previous consultancyappointments, which were simply chosen from — —

An Honourable Member — Mates.

Hon. M. M. Gould — By the task force.

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL — Yes, but not — —

An Honourable Member — You are trying to becomplimentary, aren’t you?

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL — Yes. They were notchosen as the result of a tender, but I am pleased thatthis one will be chosen as a result of a tender.

ADJOURNMENT


I seek the minister’s advice. On what date was thetender called for, and is it being called for in the form ofadvertisements, is a notice being placed in theGovernment Gazette or are letters going to consultants?What is the process for the tender being called, andwhen was it called?

Responses

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for IndustrialRelations) — The Honourable Wendy Smith raised amatter for the Minister for Housing about crisisaccommodation. I will pass that on to the minister andask her to respond in the normal manner.

The Honourable Kaye Darveniza raised a matter for theMinister for Community Services about a discussionpaper on the new partnership delivering communitycare. I will ask the minister to respond to her in thenormal manner.

The Honourable Carlo Furletti raised a matter for thePremier about Argyle Square in Carlton. I will raise thatwith the Premier and ask him to respond in the normalmanner.

The Honourable Andrew Olexander raised a matter forthe Minister for Community Services about financialadvice services. I will pass that on to the minister andask her to respond in the usual manner.

The Honourable Barry Bishop raised a matter for theMinister for Health concerning the advisory board ofthe Mildura hospital. I will raise that with the ministerand ask him to respond in the usual manner.

The Honourable Graeme Stoney raised a matter withthe Minister for Small Business — honourablemembers are aware she is ill this evening — regardingthe Apex Club of Mansfield and the effects of theFundraising Appeals Act. I thank the honourablemember for his letter on that. I will pass it on to theminister and ask her to respond in the normal manner.

The Honourable Gordon Rich-Phillips raised a matterwith the Minister for Small Business to be referred tothe Minister for Health about the Medical TreatmentAct and the possibility of a central database. Obviouslyit is a state account and can only be established in astate system, but I will refer that to the Minister forHealth and ask him to respond in the usual manner.

The Honourable Jeanette Powell raised a matter for theMinister for Housing concerning the government’scommitment to improve the Parkside Estate with a$5 million project. She asked that the minister take intoaccount a number of organisations, country

organisations in particular, to ensure funding of thatproject on an equal basis. I will raise that with theminister and ask her to respond in the normal manner.

The Honourable Cameron Boardman raised a matterfor the Minister for Health concerning the availabilityof a bed in an intensive care unit for Sylvia Holmes. Iwill ask the minister to respond in the normal manner.

The Honourable Peter Katsambanis raised a matter forthe Minister for Small Business about concerns of smallbusinesses in his electorate as a result of the WorldEconomic Forum coming to Melbourne.

The Honourable Bill Forwood raised a matter with meconcerning advice I gave him in a Public Accounts andEstimates Committee hearing that Industrial RelationsVictoria was undergoing a review as a result ofbringing the two branches together. That review wasundertaken by the executive director, as I advised him. Iam informed it was done in line with governmentpolicies and guidelines and that the secretary of thedepartment oversaw that project.

Hon. Bill Forwood — It did not go out to tender?You just did it internally?

Hon. M. M. GOULD — It did go out to tender. Itwent through a tender process under the appropriateguidelines and it was approved by the secretary of thedepartment and the executive director.


Hon. M. M. GOULD — To be honest, I am notsure. The tender went out in line with governmentguidelines, in line with the principles set out. Theprocess of getting the consultants to undertake thereview was done within government guidelines and thatwas approved by the executive director and thesecretary of the department.

Hon. B. N. Atkinson — Was there a consultant?

Hon. M. M. GOULD — Yes, I said there was aconsultant.

An Honourable Member — You said the executiveofficer did it.

Hon. M. M. GOULD — No, I said the consultantwho undertook the review was selected in line with theguidelines set down and that was approved by thesecretary of the department and the executive director.

Hon. Bill Forwood — Can you check up and writeme a note?

ADJOURNMENT


Hon. M. M. GOULD — Sure. I am quite happy tospell that out.

The Honourable Mark Birrell referred to theannouncement I made yesterday that the governmentwould undertake an economic impact study on therecommendations of the independent industrialrelations task force. On formally receiving the reportyesterday I signed off on a brief with the department toput in train the tendering process for that.

Hon. M. A. Birrell — Before or after questiontime?

Hon. M. M. GOULD — I signed it off yesterdayafter question time.

Hon. M. A. Birrell — That is not what you said.You said during question time.

Hon. M. M. GOULD — Sorry, I signed offyesterday morning after I formally received it, beforequestion time.

Hon. M. A. Birrell — Is that morning, or afterquestion time?

Hon. M. M. GOULD — Yesterday I signed offafter I had formally received the independent task forcereport and indicated that the government wouldundertake an economic impact statement. I signed offthe brief for the department to undertake the usualprocess in line with government guidelines.

Hon. C. C. BROAD (Minister for Energy andResources) — The Honourable Roger Hallam againraised with me the matter of the government’scommitment to the Snowy River and referredparticularly to the resolution carried at the Augustnational conference of the Australian Labor Party. Thatresolution committed Labor to recognising that theSnowy River must return to a flow that is ecologicallyviable and went on to talk about the process ofnegotiating that return. He made much, as he has onother occasions, of the fact that the resolution did notdirectly refer to the government’s commitment to aflow of 28 per cent.

I indicate, as I have on other occasions, that a 28 percent flow is not an arbitrary figure that the governmenthas plucked out of the air, it is a flow based on thefindings and the work of the Snowy River inquiry.When the government and the Labor Party refer to theneed to return to a flow that is ecologically viable, bydefinition that is what they are talking about when theyset a target of 28 per cent. That is the reason for setting

that percentage of average natural flows and that is thetarget to which the government is committed.

The Honourable Dianne Hadden raised for the attentionof the Minister for Transport a matter concerning thegovernment’s announcement of the fast rail project toBallarat. She asked the minister to give urgentconsideration to reintroducing passenger rail servicesfrom Ballarat to Ararat as part of that fast rail project.That is a matter I shall refer to the Minister forTransport.

The Honourable Chris Strong also raised a matter forthe attention of the Minister for Transport on behalf ofconstituents at Beach Road in Black Rock. He askedthat the minister investigate the redesign of a section ofBeach Road in relation to the distance between theroad, the footpath and bike tracks to protect the safetyof users of the footpath and bike tracks in light of recentaccidents. That is a matter I shall refer to the Ministerfor Transport.

The Honourable Bill Baxter raised with me the matterof electrical safety certification and the problem thathas been identified in connection with regularmaintenance of premises by the same electrician andcertification on each occasion. He requested that Iinvestigate the matter with the Office of the ChiefElectrical Inspector to see whether another arrangementcan be arrived at which protects safety but improvesefficiency. That is a matter I shall take up with theOffice of the Chief Electrical Inspector.

The Honourable John Ross raised for the attention ofthe Minister for Environment and Conservation amatter concerning limited facilities for the legaldisposal of hazardous waste and the storage ofhazardous waste. He called on the minister to giveurgent attention to the need for increased facilities,particularly in his province. That is a matter I shall referto the Minister for Environment and Conservation.

The Honourable Ron Bowden raised with me thematter of rock lobster fishers and their families at SanRemo and their concern about the future of the rocklobster industry. This is a matter about which we havehad discussions. I have had lengthy consultations withpeople in the industry, including representatives of theindustry in San Remo. I am acutely aware of thecircumstances which they and rock lobster fishers inother rural and regional communities face where wehave a natural resource that is under a great deal ofpressure and where the federal government is calling onthe state to manage the resource within ecologicallysustainable development principles, principles to whichthe state government is committed.

ADJOURNMENT


I also acknowledge that the previous government hadmade a start on addressing this matter andinvestigations and reports were commenced under it. Inweighing up these matters I am currently in the processof seeking advice through the FisheriesCo-Management Council prior to making a decisionshortly. I shall give a commitment to the honourablemember that in making that decision I shall be carefullyconsidering the social and economic impacts on localcommunities and at the same time endeavouring tomeet the ecologically sustainable developmentprinciples the government is required to abide by.

The Honourable Philip Davis raised with me the matterof the report released today on security of the electricitysupply, a matter I am delighted to talk about havingspent some months working on it and given that it is adry subject and not many people want to talk about it ingreat detail. The matters the honourable member raisedrefer to a number of issues in the report. However, hehas spoken somewhat misleadingly about how thematters are actually referred to in the report. In relationto the impact of industrial action, it is made clear in thereport that it was only one of a number of factors thatinfluenced the load shedding in February this year.

The report refers to a large number of actions thegovernment is proposing to take in securing electricitysupply for the state. The report makes it clear that onbaseload generation the investigations undertaken bythe task force established that in meeting the peakdemand needs of the state, which are in the short tomedium term, there is no possibility of the industryinvesting in large-scale baseload generation to meet theneed in around 1 per cent of the year.

Having established that fact, the report goes on toaddress in some detail the actions the governmentproposes should be undertaken to address that 1 percent issue in securing sufficient supplies to meet peakdemand, in particular the matter of addressing demandmanagement.

The government’s investigations suggest that the matterhas been greatly underestimated and has not been givendue consideration, either in the marketplace or by thenational market. It is the government’s view that thereare considerable commercial opportunities in additionto another matter raised by the honourable member —that is, encouraging energy conservation and energyefficiency, which has considerable benefits rangingfrom a reduction in greenhouse emissions to reducingbills for consumers.

In addition to those matters the report clearly talksabout entering into commercial contracts to secure

interruptable supply. The most well-known example ofthat, which works very well in Victoria, is the smelter,and there is no reason why commercial contracts of thatnature cannot be secured. The report also addresses theissue of securing existing stand-by generation. Therewere no systems in place to identify let alone enter intocommercial arrangements to supply electricity into thegrid.

The report shows what needs to be done to address theshort-to-medium term situation in Victoria. In terms ofsecuring industry investment to meet average growth indemand over the longer term, there is no reason tobelieve that when that is economically viable theindustry will not make that investment. Clearly in theshort-to-medium term that is not a proposition.

The Honourable Ian Cover referred to the port ofMelbourne, the port of Geelong, the standard railconnection to the port of Geelong and the government’scommitment to that matter.


Hon. C. C. BROAD — No, I do not believe hementioned that. He referred to my answer to a questionon the performance of the port of Melbourne. I rejecthis claim that I cast aspersions on the performance ofthe port of Geelong. In referring to the performance ofthe port of Melbourne I was seeking to point out to theopposition that despite its preoccupation when ingovernment with privatising ports, the publicly ownedport of Melbourne is perfectly capable of performing ata high level. I congratulate the port of Melbourne andthe privately owned ports on their performances. I pointout that the port of Melbourne is more than capable ofperforming very well as a publicly owned port.

The government’s commitment to the standard railconnection to the port of Geelong and its commitmentto provide $4.5 million to that project through theRegional Infrastructure Development Fund, which Iseem to recall the Honourable Roger Hallam raised atthe Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, is veryclear. In line with advice I have been provided with, Iexpect that private sector partners are ready and waitingto fund the remainder of that project. Commercialdiscussions are taking place at this time, and I am not ina position to say who those parties are. I confidentlylook forward to making an announcement on the issuein the near future.

The Honourable Ron Best asked about amendments tothe Mineral Resources Development Act and widelycirculated correspondence from the Coalition ofCommunities Against Open Cut Gold Mining in

ADJOURNMENT


Victoria. He raised the matter of consultation on theproposed amendments. Those matters were first raisedby me in the ministerial statement I delivered at the endof the last session of Parliament. The proposedamendments that have been widely circulated tostakeholders, critics and supporters alike, are justthat — proposed amendments. Following thecirculation of those proposed amendments there will bea further stage, and that will be when the legislation isintroduced into the Parliament following the responseto the amendments. In my view the consultationprogram the government set out is more than adequate.I reject the assertion that in some way the governmentis not being open and transparent.

I also reject the assertion that those matters were givenprior circulation to some stakeholders. They werecirculated to all stakeholders at the same time within aperiod of one month, which is a standard period ofconsultation for draft proposals. As Mr Best said, onrequest, that has been extended by a further week. Ibelieve I have answered all questions.

Hon. K. M. Smith — The minister has notanswered my question.

Hon. C. C. BROAD — The Honourable Ken Smithraised for the attention of the Minister for LocalGovernment the matter of the Bass Coast ShireCouncil. He referred to a sewerage connection andaffected trees that had been identified by a localconservation group. He asked the minister toinvestigate the matter with reference to charges beingbrought by police against certain persons. I will referthe matter to the minister.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Sport andRecreation) — The Honourable Sang Nguyen askedabout sport and recreation programs for young people,especially those from non-English-speakingbackgrounds. The government recognises theimportance of sport in the lives of all Victorians,including the young and the newly arrived in thiscountry, who are potentially at risk. That group hasbeen identified as the major focus for a new project thatI am pleased to announce — that is, a multiculturalsports initiative. I have approved funding of $40 000 fortwo years for a multicultural sports project to be run inconjunction with a centre for multicultural youth issues,with the assistance of funding from Vichealth.

As I said, the project will involve the identification ofspecific sport and recreational needs of communitieswith young and newly arrived migrants and refugees,start-up sport programs for identified communities andthe provision of small grants for equipment and

uniforms for identified communities. It also involvesthe development of partnerships between key localgroups including ethnic communities, state sport andrecreational associations, local government, schools andyouth agencies. As well, it includes the provision ofresources and training for key groups to developsustainable policies and practices for increasingparticipation and membership of people from culturallyand linguistically diverse backgrounds.

In the past six months the government has funded anumber of state sporting associations to implementprograms aimed at increasing the participation ofspecific ethnic groups. Those associations coverhockey, orienteering, volleyball and rugby union.

The Honourable Peter Hall asked how the governmentteaching scholarship scheme will be implemented andhow those in receipt of scholarships will take up thosepositions, particularly in country schools. I will refer theissue to the Minister for Education in the other place.

The Honourable Neil Lucas asked me about WaverleyPark. Again I reinforce the fact that the AustralianFootball League, just like any other organisation in thestate, is required to undergo a planning process, whichit has done. No doubt it will continue to seek what itwants to achieve. I continue to have dialogue with theAFL on a range of issues, and this is one of them.

The Honourable Maree Luckins requested additionalfunding for the Monash City Council aquatic facility. Iappreciate that the Casey funding was $5 million,which was a pre-election commitment that has beenfulfilled by the government. The honourable membermay appreciate that when local councils tender forcapital building programs there are often significantcost differences between the estimates and therealisation of the projects. No doubt the Monash CityCouncil will need to manage that issue. If localgovernment found all its projects turned out to be moreexpensive than anticipated, they would expect thegovernment to be the cash cow.

The Honourable David Davis referred to sportingsuppliers and retailers in his electorate. I appreciate thatit may have been an appropriate question for theMinister for Small Business or the Minister forConsumer Affairs, but it gives me the opportunity tomake the point that I have recently set up a sportingtask force to examine the cost of the provision of sport.Honourable members may be aware that there are anumber of significant pressures on all sports and theway those sports are provided to the community. Nodoubt the cost of compulsory competitive tenderingintroduced by the former Kennett government issignificantly detrimental to grassroots sport and the

ADJOURNMENT


provision of sports. As well, the GST, additional watercharges and the like have placed additional burdens onthe provision of sport. The task force will consider arange of issues regarding the provision and cost ofsport, and should other issues arise no doubt they willbe brought to my attention.

Hon. R. F. Smith — On a point of order,Mr President, earlier this evening I raised a point oforder objecting to comments by the HonourableAndrew Olexander about remarks made across thechamber by the Honourable Maree Luckins. I raised thepoint of order when Mr Olexander repeated thosecomments, thereby placing them on the parliamentaryrecord. During the exchange on my point of order I saidthings I was asked to withdraw some time later by theHonourable Maree Luckins. I subsequently withdrewthose comments. I now ask that the Honourable MareeLuckins also be asked to withdraw her inflammatorycomments which were made by way of interjection andwhich were clearly heard by a number of honourablemembers. These comments were not only untrue buthighly offensive to me.

The PRESIDENT — Order! The honourablemember will have to tell me the nature of the commentsso that I can rule on the point of order.

Hon. R. F. Smith — During the debate theHonourable Maree Luckins interjected that I had beenconvicted of sexual harassment. That is clearly untrue,and I respectfully ask you, Mr President, to ask her towithdraw those inflammatory and derogatorystatements, which I find extremely offensive.

The PRESIDENT — Order! I was not in thechamber at the time so I am not aware what statementswere made. I ask the Honourable Maree Luckinswhether she made such a statement.

Hon. M. T. Luckins — On the point of order,Mr President, I do not recall using the word‘harassment’. I certainly intended to use the word‘discrimination’. If I used the word ‘harassment’ it wasinadvertent, but I did mean to use the word‘discrimination’ and what I was referring to was notuntrue. I was referring to the fact — —

The PRESIDENT — Order! Whether it is true oruntrue is not relevant to the matter before the house. Iruled earlier today about the nature of offensiveremarks that a member finds objectionable. They canbe made only by substantive motion. If the honourablemember made a statement along the lines put byMr Bob Smith I ask her to withdraw.

Hon. M. T. Luckins — I do not recall using theword ‘harassment’ and I invite you, Mr President, tolisten to the tape to clarify the issue. If I used the word

‘harassment’ instead of ‘discrimination’, out of respectfor Parliament I respectfully withdraw. I ask for youradvice about what is on the tape.

The PRESIDENT — Order! I am at a disadvantagein that I did not hear the remarks. The Honourable BobSmith has objected to certain words being used andthere is now some dispute about the words used. I amleft with no other position but to listen to the tape andreport back to honourable members.

Hon. R. F. Smith — Further on the point of order,Mr President, regardless of whether the words usedwere ‘harassment’ or ‘discrimination’ I am equallyoffended.

Hon. C. A. Furletti — On the point of order,Mr President, I was in the chamber at the time and myrecollection of the matter was that the HonourableMaree Luckins used the word ‘discrimination’ and infact I may have used the words ‘sexual harassment’.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous — Do you apologise forthat then?

The PRESIDENT — Order! The Honourable CarloFurletti is not the subject of the point of order.

Hon. R. F. Smith — Further on the point of order,Mr President, Mr Furletti referred to the HonourableMaree Luckins as Big Mouth. I note that she took nooffence to that.


The PRESIDENT — Order! Let us deal with thematter now before the house. Mr Bob Smith hasobjected to a matter that we all regard as serious — thatis, the honourable member has been found guilty of anoffence which is either harassment or discrimination. Iunderstand that you are objecting to both words.

Hon. R. F. Smith — That is correct, because neitheris true.

The PRESIDENT — Order! In that case I do notneed to hear the tape. I ask the honourable member towithdraw.

Hon. M. T. Luckins — Out of respect for the house,I withdraw if the honourable member finds it offensive,but I — —

The PRESIDENT — Order! That is all that isneeded.

Motion agreed to.

House adjourned 11.30 p.m. until Tuesday, 3 October.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Answers to the following questions on notice were circulated on the date shown.Questions have been incorporated from the notice paper of the Legislative Council.

Answers have been incorporated in the form supplied by the departments on behalf of the appropriate ministers.The portfolio of the minister answering the question on notice starts each heading.

Tuesday, 5 September 2000

Transport: public transport revenue

613. THE HON. P. A. KATSAMBANIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (forthe Honourable the Minister for Transport):

(a) What was the monthly public transport revenue processed by Revenue Clearing House for its fiveshareholders in each month between September 1999 and February 2000.

(b) What was the revenue processed by the house in each of those months for — (i) Bayside Trains; (ii)Hillside Trains; (iii) Swanston Trams; (iv) Yarra Trams; and (v) the Department of Infrastructure onbehalf of private bus operators.

ANSWER:

As the contracts signed by the Kennett government are subject to commercial in confidence clauses, I have beenadvised that the permission of the franchisees must be received before the information is released. Accordingly, Ihave instructed my department to seek permission to the release of the information.

I am advised that there needs to be some delay in the release of the information to enable franchisees to meet theirstatutory reporting obligation to shareholders in respect to release of financial results before they authorise releaseof the results in other forums. Accordingly it is expected that the information sought will be released late this monthor early in October.

The minister will advise the honourable member separately when the information is available.

Premier: Cinemedia board appointments

636. THE HON. P. A. KATSAMBANIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Industrial Relations (for theHonourable the Premier): What is the name of each person appointed to the board of Cinemedia since18 September 1999.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

The question you have raised relates to the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Arts and should be directedto that minister.

MEMBERS INDEX

5 and 6 September 2000 COUNCIL i

MEMBERS INDEX

ASHMAN, Hon. G. B. (Koonung)

Rulings, 276, 279, 280, 282

BAXTER, Hon. W. R. (North Eastern)

Adjournment

Electricity: safety certificates, 300Minister for Environment and Conservation: correspondence, 212

Questions without notice

Snowy River, 248

Workcover: premiums, 232

BEST, Hon. R. A. (North Western)

Adjournment

Bendigo: healthy eating service, 213Minister for Energy and Resources: consultation, 307

Liquor: licences, 243

BIRRELL, Hon. M. A. (East Yarra)

Adjournment

Industrial relations: task force, 218, 307

Bills

Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 253

Parliamentary committees, 236

Points of order, 174, 283


Industrial relations: task force, 172, 246, 247Public sector: enterprise agreement, 174


BISHOP, Hon. B. W. (North Western)

Adjournment

Mildura hospital, 301Rail: Ouyen crossing, 211

Bills

Victims of Crime Assistance (Amendment) Bill, 193

BOARDMAN, Hon. B. C. (Chelsea)

Adjournment

Hospitals: intensive care beds, 303Olympic Games: training, 216


World Economic Forum, 250

BOWDEN, Hon. R. H. (South Eastern)

Adjournment

Dalyston–Glen Forbes Road: upgrade, 215Fishing: rock lobsters, 305

BRIDESON, Hon. ANDREW (Waverley)

Adjournment

Taxis: driver standards, 215

BROAD, Hon. C. C. (Melbourne North) (Minister for Energy andResources, Minister for Ports and Minister assisting the Ministerfor State and Regional Development)

Adjournment

Responses, 219, 309

Bills

Essential Services Legislation (Dispute Resolution) Bill, 176, 260Information Privacy Bill, 223Local Government (Restoration of Local Democracy to Melton)

Bill, 176, 261

Business of the house

Sessional orders, 262

Questions on notice

Answers, 176


Electricitysupply, 246tariff, 171

Geological Survey: appointment, 249Port of Melbourne: performance, 175Snowy River, 248

CARBINES, Hon. E. C. (Geelong)

Adjournment

Gas: Portarlington, Indented Head and St Leonards supply, 212

MEMBERS INDEX

ii COUNCIL 5 and 6 September 2000

Bills

Equal Opportunity (Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation) Bill,272


Electricity: supply, 246Youth: regional committees, 173

COOTE, Hon. Andrea (Monash)

Adjournment

Housing: St Kilda hotel closure, 214

Bills


COVER, Hon. I. J. (Geelong)

Adjournment

Rail: port of Geelong link, 306

CRAIGE, Hon. G. R. (Central Highlands)

Adjournment

Mount Stirling Road: safety works, 210

DARVENIZA, Hon. Kaye (Melbourne West)

Adjournment

Community care: services, 299

Bills


Points of order, 251


Better Pools program, 248Port of Melbourne: performance, 175

DAVIS, Hon. D. McL. (East Yarra)

Adjournment

Industrial relations: IT industry, 217Workcover: premiums, 305

Bills


Points of order, 219, 250, 279, 280


Minister for Industrial Relations: offices, 175

DAVIS, Hon. PHILIP (Gippsland)

Adjournment

Electricity: supply, 305Geological Survey: appointment, 210


Electricity: tariff, 171Geological Survey: appointment, 249

DEPUTY PRESIDENT, The (Hon. B. W. Bishop)

Rulings, 238, 239, 291

FORWOOD, Hon. BILL (Templestowe)

Adjournment

Industrial Relations Victoria: review, 305Liquor: licences, 218

Bills

Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 260



Public Accounts and Estimates Committee

Membership, 223



FURLETTI, Hon. C. A. (Templestowe)

Adjournment

Argyle Square, Carlton, 299EPA: test results, 214

Bills


Juries Bill, 295Victims of Crime Assistance (Amendment) Bill, 177


MEMBERS INDEX

5 and 6 September 2000 COUNCIL iii

GOULD, Hon. M. M. (Doutta Galla) (Minister for IndustrialRelations and Minister assisting the Minister for Workcover)

Adjournment

Responses, 218, 308

Bills

Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 171, 252, 253Juries Bill, 295

Business of the house

Adjournment, 298

Economic Development Committee

Membership, 223

Law Reform Committee

Membership, 223

Parliamentary committees, 237


Public Accounts and Estimates Committee

Membership, 223

Questions on notice

Answers, 176


Industrial relations: task force, 172, 173, 246, 247, 250Minister for Industrial Relations: offices, 175Public sector: enterprise agreement, 174


HADDEN, Hon. D. G. (Ballarat)

Adjournment

Rail: regional links, 300

Bills




Industrial relations: task force, 247

HALL, Hon. P. R. (Gippsland)

Adjournment

Fishing: bag limits, 210Teachers: scholarships, 302

HALLAM, Hon. R. M. (Western)

Adjournment

Local government: national competition policy, 215Snowy River, 299

Bills

Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 255Equal Opportunity (Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation) Bill,

268Juries Bill, 296Victims of Crime Assistance (Amendment) Bill, 184



JENNINGS, Hon. G. W. (Melbourne)

Bills

Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 259, 260


KATSAMBANIS, Hon. P. A. (Monash)

Adjournment

Olympic Games: training, 216World Economic Forum, 304

Bills


LUCAS, Hon. N. B. (Eumemmerring)

Adjournment

Waverley Park, 216, 302


LUCKINS, Hon. M. T. (Waverley)

Adjournment

Better Pools program, 304School Focus Youth Service, 216

Bills




MEMBERS INDEX

iv COUNCIL 5 and 6 September 2000

MADDEN, Hon. J. M. (Doutta Galla) (Minister for Sport andRecreation, Minister for Youth Affairs and Minister assisting theMinister for Planning)

Adjournment

Responses, 221, 311

Bills

Planning and Environment (Restrictive Covenants) Bill, 223



Better Pools program, 249Olympic Games: training, 176Students: sport participation, 251World Economic Forum, 250Youth: regional committees, 174

MIKAKOS, Hon. Jenny (Jika Jika)

Bills





NGUYEN, Hon. S. M. (Melbourne West)

Adjournment

Braybrooksport and recreation facilities, 301street lighting, 211

Bills



OLEXANDER, Hon. A. P. (Silvan)

Adjournment

Knox: school crossings, 213Maroondah: financial counselling services, 301

Bills




POWELL, Hon. E. J. (North Eastern)

Adjournment

Goulburn Valley HIV/AIDS resources group, 213Housing: Shepparton estate, 303

Bills


PRESIDENT, The (Hon. B. A. Chamberlain)

Absence of minister, 246

Conduct of debate, 297

Deputy Clerk, 171

MAS: royal commission, 171

Rulings, 173, 174, 175, 207, 208, 211, 217, 219, 246, 248, 250, 251,256, 257, 258, 259, 283, 299, 300, 312

RICH-PHILLIPS, Hon. G. K. (Eumemmerring)

Adjournment

Hospitals: refusal of treatment, 302Minister for Major Projects and Tourism: correspondence, 212

ROMANES, Hon. G. D. (Melbourne)

Adjournment

Carlton: traffic congestion, 210

Bills




Industrial relations: task force, 172Students: sport participation, 251

ROSS, Hon. J. W. G. (Higinbotham)

Adjournment

Patterson–Tucker road intersection: traffic signals, 215Toxic waste, 304

SMITH, Hon. K. M. (South Eastern)

Adjournment

Bass Coast: sewerage dispute, 306Workcover: premiums, 217

MEMBERS INDEX

5 and 6 September 2000 COUNCIL v

Bills



SMITH, Hon. R. F. (Chelsea)

Bills



Points of order, 276, 283, 312


Olympic Games: training, 176

SMITH, Hon. W. I. (Silvan)

Adjournment

Housing: youth homelessness, 211Wesley Crisis Centre, 299

STONEY, Hon. E. G. (Central Highlands)

Adjournment

Apex Club of Mansfield, 301

STRONG, Hon. C. A. (Higinbotham)

Adjournment

Beach Road, Black Rock: black spot funding, 300


THEOPHANOUS, Hon. T. C. (Jika Jika)

Bills

Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 257Victims of Crime Assistance (Amendment) Bill, 205






THOMSON, Hon. M. R. (Melbourne North) (Minister for SmallBusiness and Minister for Consumer Affairs)

Adjournment

Responses, 221

Bills





Liquor: licences, 172, 173

200… · the governor his excellency the honourable sir james augustine gobbo, ac the...

Documents